On Experts and Global Warming

[groovedaddy]

Experts have always posed a problem for democracies. Plato scorned democracy, rating it the worst form of government short of tyranny, largely because it gave power to the ignorant many rather than to knowledgeable experts (philosophers, as he saw it). But, if, as we insist, the people must ultimately decide, the question remains: How can we, non-experts, take account of expert opinion when it is relevant to decisions about public policy?

To answer this question, we need to reflect on the logic of appeals to the authority of experts. First of all, such appeals require a decision about who the experts on a given topic are. Until there is agreement about this, expert opinion can have no persuasive role in our discussions. Another requirement is that there be a consensus among the experts about points relevant to our discussion. Precisely because we are not experts, we are in no position to adjudicate disputes among those who are. Finally, given a consensus on a claim among recognized experts, we non-experts have no basis for rejecting the truth of the claim.

These requirements may seem trivially obvious, but they have serious consequences. Consider, for example, current discussions about climate change, specifically about whether there is long-term global warming caused primarily by human activities (anthropogenic global warming or A.G.W.). All creditable parties to this debate recognize a group of experts designated as “climate scientists,” whom they cite in either support or opposition to their claims about global warming. In contrast to enterprises such as astrology or homeopathy, there is no serious objection to the very project of climate science. The only questions are about the conclusions this project supports about global warming.

There is, moreover, no denying that there is a strong consensus among climate scientists on the existence of A.G.W. — in their view, human activities are warming the planet. There are climate scientists who doubt or deny this claim, but even they show a clear sense of opposing a view that is dominant in their discipline. Non-expert opponents of A.G.W. usually base their case on various criticisms that a small minority of climate scientists have raised against the consensus view. But non-experts are in no position to argue against the consensus of expert opinion. As long as they accept the expert authority of the discipline of climate science, they have no basis for supporting the minority position. Critics within the community of climate scientists may have a cogent case against A.G.W., but, given the overall consensus of that community, we non-experts have no basis for concluding that this is so. It does no good to say that we find the consensus conclusions poorly supported. Since we are not experts on the subject, our judgment has no standing.

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/07/12/on-experts-and-global-warming/?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=thab1

[damntexdem]

1. Science has its own systems of peer review -- consensus by experts.

And such expert consensus is how science establishes scientific facts. The establishment of such facts is not a democratic enterprise.

Where democracy comes in is, or should be, in deciding what to do about the facts. Thus, in the face of the scientific facts of global climate change, of human contribution to it, and of existing and likely future consequences, democratic decision-making should address what to do about it: nothing (thus making it worse), some minor response that is inadequate, or adequate responses. Democratic decision-making does not apply to the facts, only to political response.

[pscot]

2. Lay persons may not have standing

but if one can parse a sentence and follow a logical argument, it's not beyond our capacity to understand the science behind AGW. The arguments in denial fail when submitted to rational analysis.

[Jim__]

3. I agree with what he says about Climate Change, but I disagree with his philosophical claims.

Specifically, I disagree with the statement: given a consensus on a claim among recognized experts, we non-experts have no basis for rejecting the truth of the claim. If the experts have a consensus on a claim; but there remain unanswered questions with respect to the claim, unanswered critical questions, then a non-expert certainly has a basis for rejecting the truth of the claim. The opinion of the non-expert will naturally carry little weight in convincing others; but he can definitely have a legitimate basis for rejecting the claim, and there may well be experts who agree with the him.