Monday, November 29, 2010
Knowledge, Belief, and Climate Change
Read the NPR article "Belief in Climate Change Hinges on Worldview" (click on the title). Reflect and comment on the connections you see between the article and our readings and discussions about the role belief plays in knowledge. (The focus of your comments should be on knowledge, belief, justification, and truth, NOT global warming.)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
24 comments:
So here’s the debate. Many people do not believe that there is such a thing as global warming. In their eyes, the scientists do not have enough of a complete data set, or that the idea is way too outrageous to believe. On the other side of the spectrum, people believe that the 98 percent of scientists who believe in global warming are correct. They think that the facts line up and that this “epistemic” data is good enough to consider as the truth, because they think they have reason to make this assumption.
The problem is that both sides can “prove” their opinion “true” by the correspondence test, the coherence test, as well as the pragmatic test. Pragmatic paradox: Both ideas are true because they both work, but which fact claim is really the truth? An example of the struggle of this pragmatic paradox is the debate over if God is real or not.
One possible reaction to this is that people will agree with the side that works best fits their reasoning and values. This would be considered a weaker, psychological certainty (lacking the facts, but contains confidence). People have a predetermined opinion, and therefore do not have any hope or chance at considering the opposite opinion. This is called assuming, and it is a bad road to take in life. Knowledge by description (evidence, believed, expressed, etc.) is more than just a mental state, making it a greater type of knowledge than that of knowledge by description (feelings, behaviors, experience, etc.). Having facts is crucial to arriving at the more truthful point of view. Again we arrive at the issue, if each is considered to be true by the tests, which is the truth. Are the scientists’ facts epistemic or psychological certainty?
In the Allegory of the Cave, the intellect is science and understanding, while the opinions are belief and perception of shadows. All are becoming, but which is more reliable. This is the same as the controversy of global warming, which is more valid?
The issue lies in the fact that both can be justified, but neither can have more of a truth than the other. Can the scientists correctly predict the temperatures of this earth twenty or thirty years from now? Do the scientists have a large enough window of data? This leads to opinions and lack of knowledge, facts, and certainty.
Each side has psychological certainty and epistemic certainty, but which of the epistemic certainty facts are more correct? Overall, each side fits the correspondence, coherence, and pragmatic tests. And both sides can be justified as the truth. So which one is “right”?
The article talks about how we use our beliefs to compare this new belief we are faced with. If the new belief does not fit with our old beliefs we automatically deny it. The last article we read talked about how we don't want to have to change our entire "web" for one new belief. The Global Warming issue deals with this idea. People do not want to change their lifestyle for something they don't even know is coming. "Belief in Climate Change" said that the same people were presented with two solutions: regulate pollution, or use more nuclear power. They agreed that global warming is an issue only after the regulation of energy was shut down. Their beliefs were challenged and they denied the idea.
As we have already learned, Knowledge = Belief + Justification + Truth. The piece in question in this post is Belief. I think people have the most trouble with changing their belief and accepting knowledge because they hold it very close to their values and to who they are. They do not acknowledge something that is true because if they were to agree, they would have to change their beliefs, and who they are as people. I find it quite ignorant for someone to continue denying something that clearly is knowledge, but it is difficult to change someone's viewpoint when belief is involved.
People believe what they want to. It's as simple as that. I don't get why this would be complicated to understand. Rarely, if ever, will someone reverse their views and beliefs that have helped shaped their other beliefs, and in turn make them "who they are". If you are a Republican, most likely you will dismiss the views of a Democrat when it comes to politics. If you believe in God, most likely you will not listen to an Atheist when it comes to a debate about God. Whatever justifies or supports your views is what you are going to go with (confirmation bias). I have noticed that people get most defensive when they start to realize that they MAY be "wrong", and start to either insult or shut down. In my opinion, it is almost impossible to come out of a debate having changed someone else's mind, or them having completely change yours. Yes, you may listen politely and cordially agree at points, but deep down, you are still going to believe what you want, and what you have always believed. This is why not just our nation, but the whole world, remains polarized on so many subjects and issues: we already believe what we are going to keep believing. The only way this could possibly change is if people become capable of being more "open-minded", willing to give up strong beliefs when proven wrong, even if it means sacrificing some pride, and go from there. But I doubt it, because people are people.
People tend to conform their factual beliefs to ones that are consistent with their cultural outlook, their world view," Braman says, and that is where our knowledge comes from. A persons culture is a great way to look into their beliefs. Each individual has their own surrounding, way of life, and views which is a good reason why Braman says: "It doesn't matter whether you show them negative or positive information, they reject the information that is contrary to what they would like to believe, and they glom onto the positive information." This all relates to why people agree and disagree on the climate change. Each individual may choose what they believe "if the implication, the outcome, can affirm [their] values, [they] think about it in a much more open-minded way," he says. That's when people come to a small agreement on what is warming up the earth.
There are two basic problems that are shown through this debate. The first one is that we have different scales for deciding what is true or not. Each side presents facts that they see as proof that x or y happens in a certain region of reasoning. Reuben Abel says that “Good Reasons” would include: sense perception, logic, intuition, self-awareness, memory, authority, consensus gentium, revelation and faith. Each side of the debate picks out a couple of these and uses it to support its cause. We see people in favor of global warming look at the scientists as authority and say that through consensus gentium they must be correct. The other side would say that logically no one can look into the future and know what is going to happen. When you do use a common test like the three we talk about in class we see that both sides could be proven true (Travis explained that). We need to find some sort of grading middle ground that would show yes or no. The reason for this is that like Riley said knowledge is justified true belief. This has some conditions like truth is eternal, objective and independent of your belief. When we find the truth of the matter some people will be wrong. The second issue comes off of this. As a society we are generally very individualistic and have an interesting way of internally rating people. Generally you are rated “higher” if you are correct so we strive to be right. We also use our previous knowledge to simplify everyday tasks. It wouldn’t make sense to relearn everything day after day so we build off of prior knowledge. These two combined are scary because we judge everything from what we know and don’t want to be wrong. If we know a certain idea then we are going to shape our whole way of thinking around that and find facts to prove these points. No matter what the others say it won’t fit your system and so you will consider it wrong. To find a solution A) we have to have a good truth test B) we have to look at all the evidence before we draw conclusions.
Thus far in TOK we've learned that in order to be knowledgeable you need belief of that subject, justification of the facts, and all this facts must be true. I feel like the argument of global warming is just a pragmatic paradox because it is a double sided argument, and both work depending on what you believe. If you know something, and I mean actually have knowledge about a subject, you must believe it. If you half believe a fact, then you don't actually know it, you just half know it, I guess.
But back to the multifaceted argument known as Global warming. Those of us in the greater population who believe in global warming, most likely are using coherence test, comparing certain facts to deem global warming is true, and is happening. This would be knowledge by description. But for those of us who live in cold climates, much like the NW, and think that climate change is not happening, then we are using knowledge by acquaintance.
Going back to the original question of how our beliefs play a role in knowledge, it plays a huge role in deciding what we think we may know. Going back to the age old example of Evolution of Humans. If you have Cristian beliefs then it directly shapes what you think you know. And vice versa with the other side of the argument.
I'm not sure why everyone is heading straight towards calling everyone just ignorant to other people's beliefs here. People's beliefs change day-to-day. The reason people believe in religions is because they've been brought upon that and have lived with it close to them for ages. It's not that they just don't feel like changing, it's that they were convinced this was right.
Sure, there are ignorant people, but the belief whether or not there is global warming or most other things is due to lack of real knowledge. I don't think anyone is "ignorant" just by saying whether or not they believe it. The idea is that the evidence is enough for some people, whereas others believe it's silly to believe people can predict the future so there is not enough evidence to really know. None of the knowledge tests would add up completely.
When we decided what we knew and what we believed, all of the ones that involved predicting anything about the future we mostly put under stuff we cannot know, even no matter if the sun has been rising for thousands of years. So no one really knows if we'll have catastrophic global warming problems.
People don't want to believe that what they are doing impacts more than just themselves. Everyone wants and is encouraged to buy a car or three because it's apart of the "American Dream" and because that sort of sense of entitlement that has been programmed into us, we don't want to believe that it's causing harm. People believe that people are being helped by all the new technology, cars, and the factories that produce it all and that is all the justification they need for them to believe that it's better. Scientists can say what they want but I don't think that people would pay any more attention because a.)they like what they have and don't want to put limits on how much they can use them, and b.) they feel justified because to them the risk of the earth being destroyed in a few hundred years when they're dead isn't worth the necessary means of prevention everyone would have to follow
People don't want to believe that what they are doing impacts more than just themselves. Everyone wants and is encouraged to buy a car or three because it's apart of the "American Dream" and because that sort of sense of entitlement that has been programmed into us, we don't want to believe that it's causing harm. People believe that people are being helped by all the new technology, cars, and the factories that produce it all and that is all the justification they need for them to believe that it's better. Scientists can say what they want but I don't think that people would pay any more attention because a.)they like what they have and don't want to put limits on how much they can use them, and b.) they feel justified because to them the risk of the earth being destroyed in a few hundred years when they're dead isn't worth the necessary means of prevention everyone would have to follow
I think that this is article makes a very interesting point on how people gain knowledge. As we have learned in class, knowledge is a justified true belief. There has been justification for the existance of global warming. There has been truth in the existance of global warming. The only thing that is missing is the fact of whether or not people believe it.
It seems fairly normal to have people polarize themselves so easily when it comes to arguments like this. The reasoning behind these seperations don't come from varying data or different speeches used to persuade people. People use their beliefs to decide whether or not the things they hear, no matter how justified or truthful they are, to decide whether or not the topic is ok to become knowledge.
Both sides of the argument are valid if you just look at the evidence and don't actually think of what is happening in the world. If you think of both sides of the argument, however, this argument is not as valid as the other one.
We don't need penguins to live in this world. They're useless.
From the information given in the article, it seems to me that these people used the coherence test. They get confronted with a new idea, they measure it with their own, pre-accepted, beliefs. They don't think it's true because it doesn't fit with what they already believe. People are just concrete on their ideas.
-Isaac Yang
So, knowledge is justified true belief. So I think the article is saying people do not have real knowledge of global warming because they do not believe it. On the other hand, they may hear other theories that seem justified, but may not be true, and they believe it because they prefer that answer, but it is not really knowledge.
This article presents a thesis that shouldn't be new to anyone. It doesn't take a Yale professor to make the assessment that people will reject what does not coincide with their values. This article reminded me of the the three different truth tests: correspondence, coherence, and pragmatic. To most, the effects of global warming are not attainable through use of the correspondence test since icecaps and such are far out. Those who believe in global warming most likely subconsciously use the coherence test; they are presented with data and information that serve as evidence and agree with the truth statement, "global warming is real." Those who see this information as invalid base their disapproval of global warming upon their beliefs. In a sense, I suppose they would be in the category of the pragmatic test in that the idea of global warming being a hoax is true because it works for them and their values. It would take more substantial evidence for these people to possible change their decision.
Global warming is a huge debate, and it will continue to be. Like Robert Kennedy Jr. said, which side do you ally with, the 98 percent, or the 2 percent. It boils down to an issue of consensus gentium, which is one of the weakest reasons to believe.
Knowledge is defined as justified, true, belief. The issue of global warming can be justified and believed, but how can it be considered true? You can use pragmatic and possibly coherence tests to add more justification for your belief, and certain signs align with correspondence tests. However, there really is no way to say that global warming is happening.
Consensus gentium is the strongest support for the global warming debate. However, according to "The Basis of Knowlege" article by Abel, this is not enough to qualify as knowledge. The only way to be knowledge is if there is truth, and at this point, the debate is really over a matter of opinions,
he main focus of the article, besides global warming, is how to get people to belief in global warming, even though statistics support the claim. In order to gain knowledge one must first believe in the subject and have justification that leads into a solid fact. Once all of these three things are met, knowledge is created. The “individualistic” live in a society in which change is constant, and they see the world differently compared to the “communitarian.”They don’t believe in such drastic change, and from my own knowledge I have seen that statistically, Americans are one’s that see change as essential, while the rest of the world doesn’t. People from different cultures don’t usually believe in change because some still carry the archaic beliefs that the world never changes, and never has. While others like the “individualistic” believe that such change is imminent and with justification, then it must certainly be true, therefore it is acceptable knowledge. While the communitarians have the statistics, but they lack the belief, and that is the most essential part of knowledge.
he main focus of the article, besides global warming, is how to get people to belief in global warming, even though statistics support the claim. In order to gain knowledge one must first believe in the subject and have justification that leads into a solid fact. Once all of these three things are met, knowledge is created. The “individualistic” live in a society in which change is constant, and they see the world differently compared to the “communitarian.”They don’t believe in such drastic change, and from my own knowledge I have seen that statistically, Americans are one’s that see change as essential, while the rest of the world doesn’t. People from different cultures don’t usually believe in change because some still carry the archaic beliefs that the world never changes, and never has. While others like the “individualistic” believe that such change is imminent and with justification, then it must certainly be true, therefore it is acceptable knowledge. While the communitarians have the statistics, but they lack the belief, and that is the most essential part of knowledge.
The problem that this article highlights is the fact that people always want to cling to their beliefs and never want to be open minded and consider other arguments besides their own. As people go through their lives, they form many beliefs, some wrong and some right. These beliefs that we have been forming our entire lives are very difficult, if not impossible, to detach ourselves from.
The argument over global warming has two distinct sides, both defending beliefs they have formed. One side might be the majority but that does not lessen the legitimacy of the other belief. Many people think that there is just as much proof against global warming as there is for it. So, if someone has a belief to begin with, they will research to no end in order to prove it.
This is why both arguments are losing battles. People are very difficult to tear from their beliefs. So, even if one side gains some evidence that seems to determine who is right, the other group will come up with a reason why that evidence is not legitimate. And, this is true for all argument whether it be over global warming or the existence of a god, it is impossible to change the mind of people who have already made their minds up.
The Article that we read focuses on how we as a people tend to accept new beliefs. When there is evidence that supports a belief that goes against everything that is being held as the truth then people rarely if ever change their perspective. People tend to deny the truth of something whether or not it is justified or not. As an example, Global Warming is a new idea on why the earth is having some major climate changes and many people do not or will not consider it as a possibility. Lastly, the latest article that if we accept new ideas then we will have to change and entire web of our thinking in order to make room for this one idea and many of us are not willing to do this in order for the truth to be known whether or not the truth is justified or not.
from what i got there's a few points that are important...
-Americans believe we;re causing global warming despite some scientific reports that claim otherwise (even though it's only 2% of scientists)
-a Coal Company's CEO thinks that global warming is a hoax because of his inability to comprehend the ablity to predict a temperature 10-20 years from now based on research. (note the fact that if people decided to move towards correcting global warming, that a Coal Company would be financially effected in an undesirable way)/
-Environmentalists (special scientists) say that 98% of research climatologists (spefically trained to study climate changes and, hello, TEMPERATURE) say global warming is real.
but when touching base on Belief, Truth, and Justification; scientists and numbers and justified speaches dont matter. the people will believe what they want to believe, and will do or say whatever they can to back those beliefs up, the the CEO of the Coal Company.
When people are presented with new information and are deciding whether to believe it is true or not, they use the three truth tests we learned about: correspondence, coherence and pragmatic. Since the concept of global warming does not satisfy these people's pragmatic theory due to their cultural beliefs they reject to believe it is true. But when we look at the facts presented logically you can see that coherence theory supports that global warming is in fact occurring. Scientists look measure different changes in the environment and climate to come to the conclusion that global warming is happening. This theory is not necessarily supported by the correspondence test though. It is not as obvious as walking outside and noticing it's always 10 degrees warmer. Global warming affects climate, not always weather, which is why many people remain skeptical to the concept.
in this case you can just toss knowledge, truth, and justification out the window. this article is stating that the tendency of people is to reject debatable ideas that do not conform to there image of how the world should look. there is evidence that supports the clam that there is global warming due to the human impact on the earth. there is also evidence that the apparent increase in the earths temperature has nothing to do with the impact of human activity. both sides are equally feasible.
furthermore, there is a very small amount of people who actually have the knowledge and the recourse needed to conduct the experiments that you would need to observe the facts directly. therefor they are only left with whatever information they are presented with form the news, radio, other people, ect.
how can you justify something that you have never directly observed? the only thing you have to justify you conclusion with is the second hand information that you are presented with. because this is the only information you have your beliefs become your justifications.
peoples beliefs differ greatly form person to person and what you are left with is a wide spectrum of people thinking many different things who all think that there version of the truth is correct.
Post a Comment