"Superfreakonomics author Steven Levitt [ver aqui] has been fighting against the myriad critics going after him for the many, many mistakes in (at least) the global warming section of the book. Interestingly, a phrase that keeps coming up in his rebuttals is 'I'm not sure why that is blasphemy.'
Blasphemy. Hmm.
What strikes me as interesting about the use of this term is that it (along with the use of 'belief' and explicit references to 'global warming religion') changes the frame of the discussion of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) to something for which faith overrides analysis.
By claiming that AGW scientists are simply pushing their beliefs, AGW critics can position themselves in front of the general public and the traditional media as simply having differing beliefs, in a social milieu in which multiplicity of faiths is a Good Thing (™). Attacking them for not believing in AGW is akin (in this framing) to attacking them for being Presbyterian. You may disagree with their beliefs, they say, but they have every right to believe what they want.
The parallel here is with scientific subjects such as evolution, the biological origins of sexual orientation, and the age of the universe, all of which have opponents who insist on framing all sides of the argument in terms of beliefs (you can probably add vaccinations to that pile, too). It's not just that they're faith based -- they insist that everyone else in the discussion is, too.
There's some utility for them in this.
If the discussion around AGW (or evolution, or vaccinations) was solely scientific -- with the use of relatively objective evidence, open analysis, and a willingness to learn from mistakes -- the disbelievers would quickly lose all standing. The scientific evidence for AGW is simply so overwhelming that the only way to perpetuate a 'debate' is by playing the belief card. As long as AGW deniers and 'skeptics' can keep the framing religious, they can maintain their perceived legitimacy."
Sem comentários:
Enviar um comentário