History and development of critical thinking

Science v. Society

The Politics and Science of Global Warming

The debate -- or at times, the direct and hostile conflict -- between factions of politics and pure science is centuries or even millennia old. From Socrates being put to death for his pursuit of logical truths in defiance of his society's religious beliefs, to the persecution of Galileo for his scientific findings that countered Church doctrine, to modern debates such as stem cell research and global warming, there seems to be a constant and at times drastic lag between the progress of science and such progress's acceptance by civilization. This latter issue is more in line with the historical pattern; the debate surrounding stem cell research is purely ethical, whereas the religious factions that persecuted both Socrates and Galileo disputed facts. Though both men were prosecuted for moral or ethical breaches, these supposed breaches occurred because their teachings/assertions went against those of the religious establishment. It is not specifically (or at least not entirely) a religious faction that disbelieves the mounting evidence supporting human-caused global warming, but the effect is quite similar.

Just as with Galileo's research and findings regarding the heliocentric solar system, modern scientists' research that supports human-caused global warming is rejected as unfounded quack science by many. There is a significant difference in these situations, however; though the Church in Galileo's day had their "scientists" the methods they employed were not always scientific by today's standards. The same has been said both of and by scientists on both sides of the global warming issue, but the fact that the scientific method has been established for centuries (largely by Galileo and others of his era) clouds the reliability of such accusations. It has also changed the debate from one of idealism vs. rationalism to one of supposed rationalism vs. supposed rationalism, with political complications, too.

Just as the science used both to "prove" and "disprove" global warming is a matter of great debate, both sides of the issue are also accused of political and economic motives for their findings. Such arguments were also used to explain Galileo's departure from accepted doctrine, and he was certainly a man who enjoyed the limelight. The Church's position almost certainly came in large part from a desire to retain power and control over the sciences, so it is not unusual that each side could use the issue of motive against the other. In the global warming issue, the very existence of the phenomenon has been called into question due to the economic gain to the man who first identified the problem, Roger Revelle: "Revelle co-authored a scientific paper" proposing global warming, but "the thrust of the paper was a plea for funding for more studies. Funding, frankly, is where Revelle's mind was most of the time" (Coleman). This is just one of many accusations leveled against global warming advocates.

At the same time, there are obvious economic and therefore political repercussions for many companies and governments if human causes of global warming are acknowledged. The release of fossil fuels has been driving industrial and civic expansion for the past century and a half, and there is therefore a compelling reason to deny such causes: "some corporations whose revenues might be adversely affected by controls on carbon dioxide emissions have also alleged major uncertainties in the science (Oreskes). Just as in the debate over the heliocentric solar system, issues of political and/or economic motive are raised to cloud the science at issue.