http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/04/opinion/04krugman.html?_r=1&ref=globalwarming
What Krugman is doing here is creating a pro-global warming argument (that is to say one which claims that global warming is very real) by mocking the opposite view. Whether or not you agree with him, you've got to admit that he has a knack for being persuasive without really saying anything at all! Personally, I believe that climate change is a very real and dangerous issue that we all have got to deal with, and Krugman managed to strengthen this view with no facts or “science,” but by merely pointing out the problems with the Republican's witnesses called for at the Congressional hearing on climate science. They didn't call in a scientist, but a lawyer, an economist, and a professor of marketing. So his argument here is not that their case by definition is bad, just that they did a poor job of proving their case because they offered no scientists as “expert witnesses.” And that is true! It's not to say for sure that the people that did end up speaking are not qualified, but because our judgment of people is so heavily based on their occupation, the fact that the word “scientist” doesn't appear off the bat is a bad start. Then Krugman goes on to point out the flaws that the witnesses made. Then we see an argument directly out of State of Fear. Krugman says that he is not the one with the agenda, but it is instead the opposite party who are bending the evidence in order to support what they think is the greater good, that there is no such thing as global warming.
Later on, and it is here that I take issue with what Krugman is claiming, he states that “For years now, large numbers of prominent scientists have been warning, with increasing urgency, that if we continue with business as usual, the results will be very bad, perhaps catastrophic. They could be wrong. But if you’re going to assert that they are in fact wrong, you have a moral responsibility to approach the topic with high seriousness and an open mind. After all, if the scientists are right, you’ll be doing a great deal of damage.” So, it's better to assume the worst because if you ignore it and it's wrong, then we will all be worse off for it. It's better to believe in global warming and be wrong than to ignore it and be wrong. And here, South Park comes into the argument once more. There is an episode where Kyle, a Jewish boy, learns about the tortures of hell, and that all Jewish people are going there because they have not accepted Christ as their savior. He confronts his mother about it, and she explains that Jewish people don't believe in hell. Kyle doesn't see this as an argument at all! He thinks that it is better for him to convert to Christianity and be wrong about the existence of hell, then to believe that there is no hell, and if he's wrong, end up there! Naturally, we see the flaw in this logic. You can't convert just in case you're wrong. This is something you believe with all your heart and soul, a religion, not a whim. So one can't just make people act as though global warming is real just in case their views are wrong, just to cover all their bases. I believe what Krugman is saying, but his logic has just as many holes as the Republican defense which he scrutinizes so harshly.
This has only a general connection to your post, but I think that the idea that constant coverage like C-SPAN on the internet has turned governmental institutions into a circus is really compelling. It was once a real pain in the ass to find transcripts, to look at videos, etc. but it is not that way any longer and people will see what the House and the Senate is doing pretty instantaneously -- and I think that has everything to do with how people in the House and the Senate behave.
ReplyDeleteI think that this kind of panoptic public gaze has everything to do with just who gets called to testify and what they are going to say (depending, of course, on who is calling them to say it).
I remember the South Park episode you are talking about and I remember the chain mail I had received several weeks before the episode aired that was precisely the same argument: It's better to be safe than sorry. While this argument may not hold up to scrutiny, it certainly made a 'propositional logic' case for Christ, which is really interesting in that someone felt it was necessary to make it in the first place!
Honestly, this type of argument you present here that is shown with this article is rather hilarious to me. Because the problem is - these types of arguments work! Simply by disproving somebody else, one can present some type of argument in context and convince others. The truth is, people are afraid of the unknown, and like you said (and I love you bring in South Park) people would rather invest themselves in something they don't necessarily understand / believe, just in case they are wrong and the consequences are something awful (in the SP case, going to hell!). Which is ridiculous, but kind of shows how things can get blown out of proportion. I also remember this episode, and remember thinking how ridiculous it is but also how gullible people can be.
ReplyDeleteIt's kind of how people will argue to the death about something, like politics, when they have a very limited understanding of it, but feel the need to argue. It sometimes makes me question the way people operate.
The idea that you don't even need a scientist to show facts, and can instead bring in outside sources who never have dealt with such data, is also ridiculous. "facts" are such a strange thing to look at. You found a great article!