Science, Politics and Money: The Case of Global Warming

Tweet

In a nutshell:
Science is about finding the truth, no matter what the truth is.
Is that really so?
Seems like the broad public is not always aware of the extent to which political and monetary issues affect the chances of scientific research to take place and to reach public cognizance. ,


Photo source: The Cloud Mystery Gallery

In a fashionable delay of about a year, "The Cloud Mystery", starring the physicists Nir Shaviv (no family relation) and Henrik Svensmark, was broadcasted in Israel. Not that the timing matters much: I'm pretty sure most of the readers, no matter where, have not heard about the film, its makers, and most of all – its thesis.

Nothing surprising about that, is there? How many scientific theses is the broad public aware of? Not many; mainly those that may have some specific bearing on the average person's immediate life. But lo: Shaviv & Svensmark's thesis does have a bearing on our immediate lives!

a. Are Humans to be Blamed for the Global Warming?

Think of the most immediate problem the human race, and our planet in general, is facing. Global warming seems like a very plausible candidate for this issue. Doesn't it? No, it doesn't, says a fairly recent theory, developed by Shaviv, Svensmark, geologist Jan Veizer and just a small bunch of other scientists. "Cosmoclimatology is the name given by Svensmark to the new kind of climate science featured in 'The Cloud Mystery'", as stated in The Cloud Mystery webpage. I shall call this theory of cosmoclimatology CC for short. CC challenges the widely accepted assumptions about the considerable human part in causing global warming. It presents interesting evidence supporting the claim that solar activity and galactic motions affect our climate and bring about a global warming – which will subside without real damage to Earth.

What does it all mean?

It means that humans, according to CC, are not to be blamed for the global warming; their activity has but a minuscule, insignificant effect on Earth's temperature. The increase in Earth's temperature is a natural outcome of cosmic rays, and what's more important: this process is cyclic. The Earth, according to CC, will cool again, long before the warming may become a problem. It has all happened before, explaining the ice ages of our planet.

b. Who governs science?

Seems like we may all take a sigh of relief: icebergs are not about to melt, oceans are not about to flood – we're saved! So why haven't we heard about any of it?

One possible answer is: CC scientists are wrong. The scientific world refuses to accept their findings because they are not well based.

Here is where politics and money enter the picture. I, for one, have not even a clue as for how to scientifically judge CC as right or wrong. Yet, something tells me it deserves my attention.

Martin Durkin, creator of "The Great Global Warming Swindle" (2007), pointed out that scientists depend on research funds. Shaviv states, in a recent interview (in Hebrew, sorry), that the U.S. government alone has spent in the past few years almost two billion dollars on climate research. There are clearly people and organizations that are making a lot of money out of this potential threat. Political gain is obvious here, too: what can be easier for a politician than to ride the environmental wave? The same goes even for commercial companies: almost any respectable company nowadays is advertizing its being "friendly" to the environment. Usually this is not even true, but great for increasing sales.

Many people are making money or gaining political power by joining and encouraging the general tendency of worrying about the global warming. Of course, this alone does not mean that global warming is not a genuine issue that should worry us. However, it does mean that global warming is an issue in need of a very careful scrutinization, that would make sure it is not just being cynically used by interest-driven parties.

For the sake of fairness, we should also consider whether CC scientists are not driven by their own interests. I think the answer to this question is fairly easy: we may suppose that these scientists are gaining some attention simply by being bold and innovative (even if they're wrong). However, the academic world is so built that this kind of attention is more harmful than it is useful. Stated simply: a scientist with no monetary support and academic recognition is no scientist. My conclusion, therefore, is that whether CC is correct or not, it is definitely worth attention, recognition, and further research. ,

Science, Politics and Money: The Case of Global Warming

Why Do We Believe in God's Existence or Non-Existence?

Tweet

In a nutshell:
It is a fact that no real, conclusive proofs for the existence or the non-existence of God exist. Another fact is that many rational and brilliant people are theists (believe in a certain God); and many others – rational and brilliant as well – are atheists (don't believe in any God). This combination of facts leads me to think that considering evidence for the existence or non-existence of God is not necessarily the reason for adopting atheism or theism (or any other stance). I suggest that the very wish to find a purpose to life may strengthen a theistic view, while the sense that life has no "cosmic" meaning may draw a person to an atheistic belief. ,

"Forty-two!" yelled Loonquawl. "Is that all you've got to show for seven and a half million years' work?"

"I checked it very thoroughly," said the computer, "and that quite definitely is the answer. I think the problem, to be quite honest with you, is that you've never actually known what the question is."

"But it was the Great Question! The Ultimate Question of Life, the Universe and Everything!" howled Loonquawl.

"Yes," said Deep Thought with the air of one, who suffers fools gladly, "but what actually is it?"

- Douglas Adams, "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" (photo depicts the computer "Deep Thought" thinking)

So many arguments have been raised for and against the claim for God's existence in the last thousands of years, and yet, none of them was found to be conclusive. Moreover, it seems impossible to find but one person whose opinion in the matter changed due to any of these arguments.

Why is that?

My guess, which is at this stage more of a hunch than a solidified approach, goes thus:

Some people tend to carefully consider assumptions, which they accept as true ("beliefs"); others do not. But even the most critical people – those who try to consider all of their beliefs critically and repeatedly, to avoid false beliefs – cannot examine all of their beliefs all of the time. Also, there is a limit to any chain of reasons for beliefs. If, for instance, we believe that murder is forbidden, and base this belief on the right to life of every person (or every living creature), and maybe some more basic beliefs which justify this last one – eventually we're bound to reach the building blocks of our worldview, which cannot be justified: we cannot explain why we see them as true. We just do. These are the "axioms" of our worldview (although, of course, they are not necessarily true).

I do not think that the belief in God's existence or non-existence is one of these most basic beliefs, these "axioms". They seem to be too complex to be so basic. I suggest, instead, that our attitude towards the possibility of God's existence is dictated by a deeper intuition, that relating to our place in the world and relation to it, or in other words: the supposed origin of the meaning of life. Of course, we need not necessarily be aware of this derivation.

What does this mean? I, for instance, see the world within a naturalistic perception, as lacking any supernatural existence. Why do I see the world thus? I cannot explain. It simply makes more sense to me than believing in the existence of some supernatural entity or another. I see this as an axiom, and it's affecting the rest of my beliefs. One of the implications of this axiom is that I take myself (and any other living creature) to be no more than a grain of dust, in cosmic terms, which is fine by me. I have no further pretensions, and therefore I can find meaning in life, although it has to be an autonomic meaning, chosen by me. Meaning, according to this view, is not in the things themselves, but in what we make of them, or in how we see them.

Many people – some atheists included – see this innate meaninglessness as appalling, and the atheists among them try to find a "solution" to it, or see the autonomic meaning as a compromise. According to this second view, only a purpose to our life, if not to the whole universe, can fill our lives with meaning. I here refer to "purpose" as a predetermined end, and as such, God alone can set a purpose to a person's life (for it needs to be determined before the person is born, or even conceived). Anyone can choose ends in life, but not a life-purpose as defined here.

Just as the naturalistic view I described above leads to atheism, so this second view, involving a sense of purpose, dictates theism (in one version or another), since only an Intentional Designer could have given purpose to our life.

If I am correct, then many analyses of theistic or atheistic meanings of life miss a main point, which is that our strongest intuitions regard our life's meaning, and our attitude towards God's existence is its outcome. ,

Why Do We Believe in God's Existence or Non-Existence?