From: Platt Holden (pholden@sc.rr.com)
Date: Mon Jan 13 2003 - 14:06:52 GMT
Hi Matt:
As I understand it, you (advocating the view of Rorty) assert that truth is
"no longer a matter of objectivity, but solidarity." A telling example how
Rorty's truth criteria plays out in practice happened last week when
Denmark's Committees on Scientific Dishonesty ruled that Bjorn
Lomborg's book, "the Skeptical Environmentalist" was "deemed to fall
within the concept of scientific dishonesty."
It is common wisdom--a solidarity-type truth--that global warming
presents a clear and present danger to the human condition and that to
meet this threat all nations should abide by the Kyoto Protocol.
Lomborg, a respected statistician, director of Denmark's Environmental
Assessment Institute and former member of Greenpeace, disagrees.
His book objectively measures (as the Economist reports) "the litany of
environmental alarm that is constantly fed to the public against a range
of largely uncontested data about the state of planet." In other words,
Lomborg challenges the conventional " solidarity truth" that the world's
environment is going to hell.
Beside being vilified by Greenies, Lomborg has now been deemed a liar
by a government-sanctioned committee that has been compared by
some to the Ministry of Truth of George Orwell's frightening novel of a
totalitarian state, "1984." The charge levelled by the panel consists
almost entirely of a synopsis of four articles published by Scientific
American written by self-interested environmental advocates. Not one
instance of inaccuracy in Lomborg's book was cited by the panel.
This episode cannot help but remind me of the persecution of Galileo by
the solidarity of the Roman Catholic Church and other instances in
history where solidarity truth was not only wrong but engendered cruel
treatment of individuals who dared question the reigning groupthink.
Further, whenever you mention solidarity truth I think of the fable of the
"Emperor's Clothes" that illustrates the "argumentum ad populum"
fallacy in a way even children can understand. As my logic book
describes this fallacy, "Popular acceptance of a policy does not prove it
is wise; widespread use of certain products does not prove them to be
satisfactory, general assent to a claim doesn't not prove it to be true."
Beside being logically dubious, solidarity truth has turned out to be a
chimera so many times (the earth is flat) that to rely on it may be
comfortably cozy but ultimately deceiving. To avoid being taken in by
"nice" warm, fuzzy group hugs and "Quality people," I prefer Pirsig's
truth criteria, " . . . logical consistency, agreement with experience and
economy of explanation."
Platt
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Jan 13 2003 - 14:13:23 GMT