This is the first post of the ‘arguments’ series. In each of these posts, I will outline an argument often used by people opposed to environmental protection, then provide a rebuttal.
Argument: “Climate change is a hoax”
Similar arguments: “The scientific evidence for climate change can’t be trusted”
Rebuttal (pt. 1): Why we should trust science: 6 key reasons
How do you debate a climate change denier? You may know from personal experience that such a conversation can be intensely frustrating. In this post, I hope to lay the foundation for a solid set of arguments that you can use when discussing climate change with a person who doubts or mistrusts the science.
To address this I’d first like to answer a very basic question: Why should we trust science?
To understand why we should trust science, it helps to understand the scientific method – the process that scientists use to conduct research and acquire accurate knowledge about how the universe works. This is how scientific research typically works:
1. Research question. The scientist formulates a research question, often with the purpose of finding an explanation to an observed phenomenon.
Example: Why does milk go sour when kept for too long?
2. Hypothesis. The scientist develops a hypothesis, a statement of possible cause and effect that attempts to explain this phenomenon.
Importantly, this hypothesis must be testable – this means that by testing the predictions that logically stem from the hypothesis, the hypothesis can be falsified if these predictions are shown to be untrue.
Example: Hypothesis: milk turns sour because fairies sneak in at night and use their magic to change it. A prediction that follows from this hypothesis is that if faeries are prevented from gaining access to milk, it should remain fresh.
3. Testing & experiment. The scientist gathers evidence to test the hypothesis. This is often done by conducting experiments and observing the results (empirical evidence). The observed results may support the hypothesis or conflict with it. If they conflict, this indicates the hypothesis may be incorrect.
Scientific thinking is underpinned by scepticism – scientists approach any new idea, hypothesis or explanation from a position of doubt. When investigating a hypothesis, they seek evidence that disproves it, rather than only looking at evidence that supports it. If a hypothesis passes rigorous attempts to disprove it, this provides stronger evidence that it is in fact accurate. This contrasts with the way people typically think in relation to personal beliefs – we tend to look for evidence to confirm the beliefs we hold, rather than seek to disprove them.
Example: To test the prediction, the scientist develops a fairy-proof box and stores fresh milk inside it for several days. Upon opening the box, the scientist discovers that the milk has gone sour. This evidence conflicts with the prediction and indicates the original hypothesis may not be true.
4. External review and publication. The experiment is documented and made subject to review by other scientists with expertise in the relevant field of research. This is called peer review. If the experiment was conducted according to required standards of scientific rigour, the results may be published as an article in a scientific journal.
This process helps to ensure that science is done rigorously, in a manner that takes the necessary precautions to avoid bias and ensure accuracy of results. The scientific journals in which the research is published may have greater or lesser prestige with the scientific community. Higher quality research is more likely to be published in a more prestigious journal, which in turn affects the reputation of the scientist. Therefore, it is in the best interest of the scientist to produce research that is rigorous, unbiased and provides valuable new knowledge.
Example: the article is written and subjected for expert review. It is accepted for publication in the prestigious Journal of Faerie Research. The article is widely read and cited by other scientists. As a result, the scientist is given more funding to pursue his enquiries into faerie behaviour.
5. Consensus. Over time, as further studies are conducted, and more evidence is gathered, the scientific community may reach a consensus – a general agreement – on a particular issue. This indicates very strong evidence that the theory is robust.
Though science is constantly being updated and revised, the body of scientific knowledge represents humanity’s best understanding of how the universe works. On a particular topic, there may be thousands of hours of carefully controlled and documented research, conducted by experts whose careers are dedicated to that particular field. Experiments will be reproduced by others to verify whether the results lead to the same conclusions.
Scientists do not claim to ever know the truth of anything with 100% certainty. But when the scientific community reaches a consensus on a particular issue, the weight of evidence is overwhelming, and the conclusions drawn can definitely be trusted by the general public.
Summary
Why we should trust science: six key reasons:
- Evidence: the use of evidence to test a hypothesis. A reasonable-sounding argument is not sufficient to draw conclusions about how the world works – it must be backed by evidence.
- Scepticism: science emphasises a sceptical approach to research, starting from a position of trying to disprove ideas.
- Rigour: good science is conducted in a systematic, rigorous, carefully controlled and documented manner. Precautions are taken to avoid bias and ensure accuracy.
- Expert evaluation: following the peer-review process, experimental results must be reviewed by independent experts before publication.
- Incentives: scientists are incentivised to produce rigorous, unbiased, useful research. It is in their best interest to do so, as their reputation (and therefore career) depends on it.
- Consensus: when the scientific community reaches agreement on an issue, it represents an overwhelming weight of evidence from an immense amount of carefully conducted research. The conclusions drawn represent humanity’s best understanding of this particular issue and can be taken as fact by the general public.
***
Thank you for reading! I hope you have found this valuable. If you have any feedback or suggestions for improvement, please comment below.
This post is part of what I intend to be an ongoing series that addresses arguments against action on environmental issues. This series of posts was born out of personal frustration from talking (or arguing) with people opposed to action on environmental issues such as climate change. I found that I wasn’t always able to articulate my arguments satisfactorily or recall the relevant facts mid-conversation. This series is intended to help solve this frustration by providing clear, easy-to-remember explanations and facts that will hopefully help people to have convincing discussions on environmental issues.
Where this article sits in the structure of arguments:
- Arguments against environmental protection
- Arguments against climate change action
- Argument: climate change is a hoax / the scientific evidence for climate change can’t be trusted
- Counter-argument (pt. 1): Why we should trust science << WE ARE HERE
Further reading / viewing:
Why we Should Believe in Science – TED Talk by Naomi Oreskes: https://www.ted.com/talks/naomi_oreskes_why_we_should_believe_in_science
