Environmental Ethics
and Public Policy
Ernest Partridge, Ph.D
www.igc.org/gadfly


HOME PAGE                             
                                                   
Editorials 
    Philosophy and Religion
    Ethics, Moral Issues, the Law
    The Environment
    Economics
    Education
    Science

On Politics
    The Crisis
    Foreign Relations, War, Peace
    The Media
    The Elections
    Civil Liberties and Dissent
    Republicans & the Right
    Democrats & the Left
    Lies, Propaganda & Corruption
    Culture War & Religious Right
    Coup d'Etat, 2000

Published Papers

Unpublished Papers

Reviews, Lectures, etc.    

Internet Publications

Jottings

Lecture Topics

Conscience of a Progressive
    (A Book in Progress)

A Dim View of Libertarianism

Rawls and the Duty to Posterity
    (Doctoral Dissertation)

The Ecology Project

For Environmental Educators

The Russian Environment

NO MO PO MO
    (Critiques of Post Modernism)

Notes from the Brink
    (Peace Studies)

The Gadfly's Bio Sketch

The Gadfly's Publications

The Online Gadfly: Editorial Policy
 


The Gadfly's E-Mail: gadfly@igc.org


Classical Guitar:
"The Other Profession
"

 

 


 

JOTTINGS

(Formerly "The Gadfly's Blog")

2015
 

2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011, 2010,  
 2009, 2008, 2007, 2006, 2005, 2004

Before 2004

I offer below, random musings, reflections, correspondence, scraps of work-in-progress, and other such miscellany, perchance worth sharing but not ready for the prime time of formal publication.  

Much of this material has been adapted from personal e-mail correspondence. While I am perfectly free to use, revise and expand on my side of these exchanges, use of the "incoming" correspondence is problematic. I have neither the right nor the inclination to include the words of my correspondents if they can be identified either by name or description.

If I am confident that the correspondents can not be identified and if their part of the exchange is essential to the exchange, then I might quote them directly. Otherwise, their ideas will be briefly paraphrased, only to supply context to my part of these conversations. In no case will I identify the correspondents by name.

On the other hand, signed letters to The Crisis Papers and The Online Gadfly are fair game as are other comments published in the internet. They were submitted with the clear understanding that they, and their signatories, might be made public.

Incoming correspondence will be identified by italics. My contributions will be in plain text.

 


April 29

IS SCIENCE A FALLACY?



A climate change skeptic sends me a paper detailing "logical problems" with anthropocentric climate change.

My reply:

I am much more interested in substantial and convergent evidence than I am with "logical problems."

In fact, I will stipulate that climate science is shot through with (so-called) "fallacies" -- most notably, generalization, authority and induction. But then, so to is science itself -- all of it.

Generalization? We accept Newtonís laws even though we havenít examined all moving bodies. We accept Grayís Anatomy even though (fortunately) we havenít dissected all human bodies.

Authority? All science rests on the say-so of earlier science -- those "giants" on whose shoulders Newton said he stood. The difference between science and dogma, is that "authoritative" scientific claims are in principle fallible and open to re-examination and re-confirmation and even, on occasion, revision.

Induction? As David Hume pointed out, induction is founded upon a circular argument -- it assumes "uniformity of nature" which, in turn, is based on induction.

You know all this. We teach it in Philo. 101 and, if successful, maybe some of our students remember it.

So if all science is "fallacious," why believe any of it? The pragmatists have the final and conclusive word: because it works! If any of thousands of (fallaciously) "proven" physical laws were off by 1%, no aircraft could get off the ground and I couldn't be sending this e-mail to you. Our entire industrial economy runs on the assumption that much of science is correct, or, if not, the best means of correction is better science. Science is simply, hands down, the best (if systematically imperfect) means of attaining knowledge of the physical and biotic world.

Now are you telling me that the vast majority of working and peer-reviewed publishing climate scientists just don't know how to do science? That the AAAS and NAS and dozens of other scientific societies and publications are just wrong to assume that they do?

Sorry, I just can't buy that.

Like John Boehner and Jeb Bush, I am not a climate scientist. And so (unlike these worthies) I must rely on the conclusions of climate scientists. I am not a lawyer, so I follow the advice of my lawyer on matters of law. I am not a physician, but I dutifully take the prescriptions that my doctor prescribes. I am not an aeronautical engineer, but I have few qualms about booking a flight next month.

However, I am a philosopher, and as such I can spot a phony argument a mile away.


 



December 27, 2015

Reply to Jeffrey Tayler,

"We Need a Progressie Debate on Islam.."
Salon 12/27/2015


"Islam is not a race but a religion."

No, Mr. Tayler, it is neither.

Islam, like Christianity and Judaism, is a family of religions.

Most Moslems are unified by their central creed: "There is no God but Allah, and Mohammed is His prophet." All else is diversity: Sunnis, Shi'ites, Sufis, Wahabbis, and dozens of other sects. And even self-identified "secular Moslems" reject that central creed. "Islam" for them, like Judaism to many Reform Jews ("Jewnitarians" as a Jewish friend calls them), and "secular Christians" is neither a race nor a religion -- it is a cultural tradition.

Among the Moslems there are moral monsters, as we are constantly reminded. Also among the Moslems there are saintly individuals, as we routinely forget. And in between, the vast majority of Moslems (like the vast majority of Christians) are ordinary folks, preoccupied with the struggle to make a living and to care for their families. Their holy book, the Qu'ran, like the Bible, contains morally ambiguous messages -- both horrid and ennobling. Most Moslems, like most Christians, are less "taught" by their scripture than they find therein validation for their independently arrived-at convictions.

As one wit put it: "The Bible [and the Qu'ran] is like a prisoner of war: torture it enough and you can get it to say anything."

Thus it is pointless to look for "the essence of Islam" by citing the Qu'ran. Look instead to history, where we fill find that on balance, when it comes to tolerance, the Moslems fare far better than the Christians.

After all, it is a fundamental tenet of Islam that "the People of the Book" (i.e. Jews and Christians) be treated with love and respect. To the Moslems, Jesus is regarded as a holy prophet, second only to Mohammed. Christians do not recognize Mohammed as a prophet.

Isis and Al Qaeda are disgraces to Islam. Similarly, the KKK, clinic bombers, the Westboro Baptist Church, the Holy Inquisition and the Crusades are disgraces to Christianity. There is much to despise in the history of all the Abrahamic religions.

And much more to admire and cherish. And therein is the foundation of reconciliation and the path to world peace.

Regarding Yaweh, Allah, and Jesus/God, I am an atheist.

Ethically: a "secular Christian".

 


Dr. Ernest Partridge is a consultant, writer and lecturer in the field of Environmental Ethics and Public Policy. He has taught Philosophy at the University of California, and in Utah, Colorado and Wisconsin. He publishes the website, "The Online Gadfly" (www.igc.org/gadfly) and co-edits the progressive website, "The Crisis Papers" (www.crisispapers.org).  Dr. Partridge can be contacted at: gadfly@igc.org .