Looking back at my old post is a little interesting because it was before we discussed the book in class. In the article above, the author focuses on the vast amount of knowledge that can be looked at in regards to all the things that global warming encompasses. He uses Crichton's book to back up his debate by talking about all his shortcomings in his book. He clearly states all the evidence out there, but dismisses Crichton's work due to his use of only evidence that could be useful or could be tweaked to match his viewpoint. Along with the vast amount of knowledge revolving around global warming, the author also focuses on the variety and numerous factors involved. Throughout his answering of questions, he always comes back to the fact that there are many unknowns revolving around global warming but yet supports global warming by dismissing State of Fear. Its a circulating reference revolving around the fact that science is fact. He even states that if there is a consensus in regards to the data it is true.
This reminds me of my high school IB Theory of Knowledge class. With a heated discussion we came to the conclusion that there really isn't truth per se. Truth is relative to the eyes of the beholder. We regard science as truth because of a consensus between knowledgeable scientists , when in fact, there is no truth. I think his reasoning doesn't work because it relies on the fact that science is ultimately true, when in fact everyone forgets that science is never proven as true, but is rather something that cannot be falsified. The author is constantly explaining that there is so much evidence and that it must be built upon, working with the circulating reference in terms of science being what is "true" to many.
No comments:
Post a Comment