From Monday's NY Times:
To the Editor:
Your article concludes that global warming agnosticism is mostly an American thing. I disagree. Around the world, the opinion that global warming is a clear and present danger is much diminished. There is a realization that the case for global warming was uncertain at best, and certainly greatly exaggerated.
Global warming remains a hypothesis. At least in this one instance, the United States showed itself more prudent, and rightly more skeptical, than many. Politics has always been the plague of science.
Claude Roessiger
Wolfeboro, NH
I'm a little confused by the last sentence, but if the author intends an argument and not just a series of loosely connected assertions, I'm curious whether he commits one or more fallacies.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
I see elements of appeal to unqualified authority; ad populum; red herring; and missing the point.
Without reading the NY Times article, I can only speculate that Claude is making an objection to an argument. I favor this interpretation, since I do not see a clear inference in his letter.
It is possible that Claude believes the conclusion of the article, that “global warming agnosticism is mostly an American thing,” could be used as a premise to trivialize the skeptical viewpoint, along with the premise that American politics tends to dichotomize issues and propagate one side for the sake of partisan support (hence his statement about politics plaguing science). These premises might be (weak) grounds for believing that skepticism about global warming is merely a product of American political contest and propaganda, and therefore an illegitimate perspective.
Claude attacks the premise that global warming agnosticism is a product of American politics by pointing out that other nations (which are presumably naïve of American political propaganda) are also skeptical about global warming.
I am wary about the use of the terms “agnostic” and “skeptical.” One term could refer to a population that is split in opinion (some people believe A, while others believe B), and the other could refer to the scientific attitude (some people are not sure whether A or B). Any number of things could go wrong with this ambiguity on the table.
When I read the article I literally made a face at the last sentence so I definitely see where you are coming from. For this reason I agree with David on the missing the point fallacy. I am struggling to determine whether or not the second paragraph commits red herring. Something makes me want to say that it doesn't because it seems relevant to the author's point in the first paragraph. What I see is:
P - There is a realization that the case for global warming was uncertain at best, and certainly greatly exaggerated.
C - Global warming remains a hypothesis.
This seems legitimate to me and relevant. Am I missing something because I don't know too much about the subject?
Thank you all for your efforts. Certainly the fact that populations do or don't believe something tells us nothing by itself about whether it is true. So whether the premise Will extracts is true doesn't matter much, since a claim's being a mere hypothesis rather than a working theory depends on the evidence for and against it, not popular views.
The author's last statement is true, but not in the way that he means it. Political persuasion like his, and economic interest, are interfering with our objective assessment of the science, and the results will probably be catastrophic.
Post a Comment