Harry Marks wrote:An interesting (but long) exploration of the invasion of scientific authority by an anthropologist and philosopher.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/25/maga ... ience.html FMovies YesMovies SolarMovie
I think we are all learning about the importance of anthropological understanding. (Anybody seen the word "tribal" lately?) I don't think the first few tablet pages of this piece give a very good picture of why that matters to the climate debate, but if you stay with it you begin to get the picture.
In a way, of course, the tribalism of scientists is no different from the tribalism of environmentalists who tried to shut down geoengineering from the first time they heard about it. Or the tribalism of business executives or the tribalism of long-distance truckers. They want to "black box" their deliberations and emerge from the smoke-filled room with the deal settled. A very useful insight. It calls into question what we mean by accountability, or the openness of an open society.
I am not suggesting that I dissent from these values, only that we haven't thought through yet how they work and what they mean.
a few thrilling observations. This makes sense to me.
There are humans out there sporting on a marketing campaign of direct discussion with people who aren't clearly dug in on climate change but who do not recognize the problem. I assume that approach makes feel - even though they will now not percentage ninety eight percentage of their reviews, they are able to still set up a human connection and apprehend problem for one's children.
It seems to me the toughest element is to have solutions for technical questions with out getting misplaced inside the medical specializations. here's a easy one which has come up in my efforts to provide an explanation for to pals: how do we understand the warming we see is due to GHG's and no longer some other reason, like cyclical versions in the tilt of the earth's axis?
