Thomas Friedman reports that Senator Lindsey Graham has become one of the first Republicans to indicate a willingness to advance climate change legislation. While we should all welcome Senator Graham’s change-of-mind, I am alarmed by his rationale. In essence, Senator Graham is jumping on the climate change bandwagon because he thinks it is good politics, not because he thinks it is sound science. He still maintains that “You can have a genuine debate about the science of climate change….”
Let’s be clear: There is widespread consensus in the scientific community that human activity is catapulting us toward a climate calamity. As such, Senator Graham’s nonchalant dismissal of this consensus are highly irresponsible. Most damaging of all, ordinary citizens hear his words and they start wanting not just to “debate the science”, but rather to “debate science” itself. He gives fodder to those who seek to discredit the entire scientific method.
Just last week, for example, I was walking down the National Mall in D.C. when I overheard two young men discussing how they thought global warming was a complete fallacy. They truly believed that it was a left-wing conspiracy to avenge Al Gore’s loss of the presidency in the 2000 elections. To prove this conclusion, one of the men proudly observed, “Just look at all of the snow D.C. got this year!”
Really, I hold no malice towards my fellow citizens who think that global warming is not real. But hearing those two men dismiss a solid scientific consensus as a conspiracy really got me wondering: despite all the standard science classes they had to take in high school, how could they have such a low opinion of scientific conclusions?
My perspective is that while our nation’s science teachers do an excellent job at teaching the “facts” of science, they need to do a lot better at teaching the philosophy and methods underlying science. In other words, rather than just teach the “what” of science, they need to teach more of the “how”. If they did, more people would understand that science is based upon doubt, not faith. So when scientists reach a consensus, it is not to be taken lightly. And furthermore, it is to be expected that fringe scientists will emerge who think they can shatter the consensus. Although that fringe is almost always dead wrong, they will always exist because success in science is geared towards disproving the current dogma. Sadly, most climate change deniers just don’t understand that science works this way.
Most of us fluent in science forget that as a philosophy, science is radically different than most other realms of human epistemology. Religion, for example, is not based upon doubt. It is based upon faith. So when science is taught as a series of facts rather than a methodology, people can’t see how it is any different from religion. They expect scientists to be “priests” revealing the truth. And when they read reports of debate within the scientific community, they think scientists are in a confused state of disarray. They lose their “faith” in science, when in fact it is operating perfectly.
Therefore, I close with a simple message for Senator Graham: I’m glad that you are helping to advance meaningful legislation to solve the climate crisis. But while you are at it, also be sure to also double down on federal funding of science education. Scientific debate is too important to America’s future to let the existence of those debates erode the public’s respect for science itself.
