The problem and prevalence of ignorance

Introduction

While climate change is the greatest threat, there are many other threats that, if we do not reverse them, could cause the collapse of our present global civilisation; yet far more people are concerned with beliefs that are entirely without evidentiary support than are trying to move the World toward sustainability.

Science has provided us with an unprecedented depth of knowledge in almost every subject, yet among the general population there is ignorance; ignorance even of what science is, is profound. The great majority of people, probably even of university graduates, would be hard pressed to explain the Scientific method.

Never in history has there been so many democracies in the world, yet voters give very little thought to how they vote; consequently many countries are effectively run by moneyed interests rather than by 'the will of the people'.

The scientific method

1. An observation, or more likely a series of observations, are made;
2. A hypothesis is produced, that, supposing it to be true, would explain the observation(s);
3. Experiments are devised to test the hypothesis;
4. If the experiments fail to disprove the hypothesis then it can become a scientific theory.

The scientific method is also explained in Wikipedia.

Science in practice

A scientific theory is built up over a period of time. Most theories would begin their public life by being published, together with evidence supporting the theory, in a 'learned journal'. It would be expected that the author of the theory would have studied previous research relevant to his theory, if any.

Anyone who believes the published theory is wrong can publish a refutation; an explanation of evidence that indicates the fallacy of the theory.

If a theory is important, and is not refuted over a period of time, the original paper will be referred to (referenced) by other scientists in the same or other learned journals. The number of these references provides a measure of the acceptance of the theory among the community of scientists in the particular specialty.

Theories are not all that are published in scientific journals. Anything of interest to the scientists whose field is dealt with by the particular journal may be published; for example Dr Naomi Oreskes, of the University of California in San Diego, published a study that she did showing that there is an overwhelming consensus in the scientific publications on the human cause for climate change.

Science and climate change

From my reading of the popular science journal, Scientific American (to which I have subscribed for about 35 years), I can say that it shows a similar preponderance of articles relating climate change to human activities; while it does (correctly) give consideration to some of the more reasonable of the contrary opinion.

Of course not all supposedly scientific journals are equal. On the face of it one would suppose that the journal of The Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine (OISM) would be a respectable learned journal. (The head of OISM is one of the main organisers of the "31 072 American Scientists" who deny climate change.) If you look into the OISM and its climate change publication you find that it is in fact of very dubious credibility.

The popular press and the commercial media are very different to the prestigious scientific press; they are much less concerned with fact than with controversy. The latter is much more likely to sell newspapers than the former; some apparent expert who is willing to take up a view contrary to that accepted by the relevant scientific community makes good press.

I have recently been shocked at the depth of the ignorance about climate change science in the parliamentary Liberal Party of Australia; it is an indictment on Australia and the Australian voters (who voted these ignoramuses into Parliament). It was the revelation of this ignorance on the ABC Four Corners program of November 9th 2009 that provoked me to write this page.

Ignorance versus science

Sign outside shop in Denmark, Western Australia

My page on threats to our global civilisation lists many things about our present society that are unsustainable. Science has discovered these threats; science has, or can, show us how we can eliminate, or at least minimise, these threats. However, instead of recognising the threats and tackling them head-on, probably the great majority of people are either ignorant of the threats or are so hung-up on their irrational belief systems that they don't see the dire need for action.

To judge by the books that are on sale in shops, the advertising in the popular media, and the articles published in the popular media, there are far more people who base their beliefs on something other than evidence than those who look at the Earth rationally. The rise of 'new age' beliefs (things like the magical properties of crystals and pyramids; non-evidence-based therapies such as homoeopathy, reflexology, magnetic therapy and even 'cranio-sacral balancing' and 'sacred geometry grid healing'; and then the old chestnut of astrology) in comparison to science in a time when it is essential that we look rationally for cures for the World's ills, is hugely concerning.

Science has shown us what the stars are made of and how the Universe works, but people seem to prefer to believe in things lacking in rational backing, religion and creation 'science' come to mind.

Ignorance in the Australian Parliament

Climate change denial

That many (although a minority, I believe) of the Australian people are ignorant of the facts of climate change is more understandable, they do not have ready access to well-informed advice and they are receiving mixed messages from the commercial media, but for federal parliamentarians in a Western Democracy, with easy access to advice from experts in the climate science field, to be so abysmally ignorant is inexcusable.

Or could it be that these parliamentarians only claim to be climate change skeptics so that they can justify their continued support of the fossil fuel industries? Is it believable that they could be so corrupt? Is it any more believable that they could be so ignorant?

The ignorance is not confined to Liberal and National parties

It seems that Steve Fielding has been listening to Ian Plimer, Professor of Mining Geology, University of Adelaide. (Plimer's arguments have been dealt with in Plimer versus Monbiot; where George Monbiot points out some of the many faults in Ian Plimer's book, 'Heaven and Earth: Global Warming – The Missing Science'.)

In Fielding's favour(?), his ignorance is real, not perhaps pretended as in the case of the Liberal and National Party climate change skeptics.

That he and his ilk can thrive, by their ignorance, is a sad indictment on our society.

Index

On this page...
Climate change denial
Embodiment of ignorance
Ignorance in Australian Parliament
Ignorance versus science
Introduction
Science and climate change
Science in practice
Scientific method
Too small to make a difference
Top