Why is it that science cannot answer all questions and why do we question its validity when it comes to such things as Climate Change?

The threat of climate change is both a challenging and daunting one. 

Trying to comprehend the potentially threatening future scenarios that our planet and human race face can be very distressing and unsettling.  The awareness of climate change is being greatly brought to our attention either through the media or by people bringing about a lot of strong emotions.  The majority of people accepts what science is telling them and believes that climate change is real, others however deny these threats, disbelieving the science.  Now I am not saying that it is or isn’t a fact, If I have to be honest I am torn between the two.  I study Science at University, and I have also studied a unit in Climate Change – I believe that not only man made induced Climate Change is happening but also, the Earths natural geological processes are at work – we haven’t been around for that long to fully understand the dynamics of the Planet.  When we are subject to news that is seen as a threat to us and our way of life we begin to question the science, demanding answers that science cannot give us.  This is because human emotions play a significant role in the way in which we respond to such news.  

Emotions override our views, is this why we resist the possibility of potential threats such as climate change?

Emotions and their responses is human nature and is a way of protecting ourselves from outside threats for survival. When we are subjected to news that is seen as a threat to our way of life, our natural defense mechanisms set in.  As we evolved we developed patterns of emotions and we organized our culture and communities in a way that enabled us to survive. Jacques Thiroux states in his reading that it makes sense that human beings became aware of their surroundings and environment and also of each other, and worked together in order to get more things done (2009, pp. 172). The social and cultural way of thinking lead people to think, believe and perceive things in a certain way, everyone had their place.  Organized communities evolved to deal with outsiders, creating their own beliefs and cultures within their communities (Machamer, 1998).  Emotions are seen when those who argue for unlimited freedom and growth use ‘outsider’ emotions to defend their position. Their emotions are based on hostility and aggression towards opposing views, even sciences, including the threat of climate change, become enemies of this ‘free’ society. Their beliefs that hold firm is being challenged by science therefore they must do anything they can to destroy the challenge that they face. They believe that their future is determined and that there is only one outcome given the facts of the past and the laws of nature (McKenna, 2004).  The willingness to believe in climate change puts a strain on that person's worldview; people's beliefs are more strongly shaped and influenced by cultural values than the scientific evidence.

People are more likely to listen and accept things if they come from people who share the same values and beliefs. People are more willing to listen if the information is consistent with their already established point of view. Different cultures will always have apposing views and beliefs, cultural diversity is indeed a good thing but only if these views are to be respected by others (Sissela, 1995, 119).  The climate scientists are seen as a threat, the sceptics are fighting a ‘war’ because this group represents those with apposing views to their own, the ‘outsider’s’ view.  Are we responding effectively enough to threats such as climate change because we are too busy arguing and debating between ourselves about values and why science cannot give us all the answers.  In order to help us mentally cope with potential threats such threats as climate change, we go into a state of denial.  We try to explain away the facts that have been told to us as being far-fetched or that science has got it wrong and we question its validity or we simply dismiss it from our minds (Hamilton, 2010a, 97). This is a natural human instinct that we have been doing for civilizations and can be seen now with regards the skepticism that surrounds climate change.  If we accept that climate change is happening, then we have to emotionally attach ourselves to the fact that life, as we know it, will not stay the same forever.  We are a civilization that is proud of our accomplishments; we work hard to be able to live a fulfilling life.  When we hear the news that threatens the way we live and interferes with our organized communities that we have created over time, we simply deny the fact that it is happening (Hamilton, 2010b, 117), and as Hamilton also states, “when the attention has been shifted from our comfortable world to something that threatens this comfort; this makes the deniers even more un-accepting” (2010c, 17).  This behavior is linked to our natural human instincts and our defense mechanisms that allow us with a way of coping. 

Distraction is another form of denial and a coping strategy that we do in order to deal with issues from everyday concerns that surrounds us to the potential threats such as climate change.  If we switch our attention to something else and do not think about the threat, then it cannot possible be happening (Hamilton, 2010d, 122).  We do this everyday; we walk around blind to things that are happening around us, we only see what we want to see. We revolve our lives around other people, playing games, watching TV, and reading books, anything that can distract ourselves away from having to dealing with such threats.  Such emotions of climate change denial are powerful enough for people to oppose science, be blind to evidence and be thoughtless about how others can sustain themselves in the future.

Emotions override people’s views and we therefore resist believing the truth when it comes to potential threats such as climate change.  Through our natural human instincts we have evolved to organize our communities and hold firm strong beliefs that are tide to that community and it’s worldview.  When news is presented to us that threaten our way of life we begin to doubt that news and our natural human defense mechanisms set in.  Emotions lead us to action and when we are subjected to anything we see as a threat we do anything possible to destroy it.  Our values determine our beliefs and our beliefs then predict our behavior and attitude towards threats such as climate change.  People are more likely to listen to other people who share the same values and beliefs and go against the outsider such as the climate scientists, developing a ‘war’ between the two, which means that we are too busy arguing and not responding to the threat that is upon us.  We use other natural defense mechanisms as a way of mentally coping with climate change by refusing to acknowledge that such a threat is actually happening and avoid thinking about the problem, we go into a state of denial. We try to explain away the facts that have been told to us, questioning the validity of the science. Such emotions of climate change are very powerful and are enough for people to oppose what science is telling us.  If science cannot answer all our questions or solve the problem, we simply pretend that it isn’t happening, we avoid thinking about it and we distract ourselves away from it, switching our attention to other things so that we don’t feel uncomfortable.  Are we blind to the evidence that science has confronted us with? and because of this, we are interfering with any form of action in a positive way to help solve such threats.  We are too concerned about how this will affect us that we are being thoughtless about how others can sustain themselves in the future.  We as a human species we have a moral right to protect the human race, we have already ‘built in’ natural survival instincts that have gotten us where we are, but we now live in a world where we seem to have lost focus, our emotions developed through values and beliefs are getting in the way of any action to over come this threat that could potentially change the way we live and the future of the human race.  We need to stop arguing, come together and act positively.  We owe it to the planet that has created us, sustained us and made us what we are.

Hope that was somewhat interesting for you - It was interesting to me to research human emotions as its the main driver in almost everything we do.  My writing skills are somewhat limited at the moment, I am new to the art of academic writing, I generally just write from my heart so please don't hold that against me.  This blog is about my thoughts and feelings, my passions and interests.  My thoughts are my own, and if you don't agree great, thats the beauty of living in an open society and everything I have just spoke about is a contributing driver to what our opinions are :)


Janine

References

Bok, Sissela 1995. Cultural Diversity and Common Values. In Common Values. Reprinted in Tomorrow Yesterday Today (FDN109) Unit Reader 2011, 192-200.  Murdoch, WA: Murdoch University.

Hamilton, Clive. 2010a. Requiem For A Species: Why We Resist The Truth About Climate Change. First Edition. Crows Nest NSW Australia: Allen & Unwin.

Hamilton, Clive. 2010b. Requiem For A Species: Why We Resist The Truth About Climate Change. First Edition. Crows Nest NSW Australia: Allen & Unwin.

Hamilton, Clive. 2010c. Requiem For A Species: Why We Resist The Truth About Climate Change. First Edition. Crows Nest NSW Australia: Allen & Unwin.

Hamilton, Clive. 2010d. Requiem For A Species: Why We Resist The Truth About Climate Change. First Edition. Crows Nest NSW Australia: Allen & Unwin.

Machamer, Peter 1998. Excerpts from “Introduction” to The Cambridge Companion to Galileo, 1 – 25. Reprinted in Tomorrow Yesterday Today (FDN109) Unit Reader 2011, 27-36.  Murdoch, WA: Murdoch University.

McKenna, Michael 2004. Compatibilism, in Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Reprinted in Tomorrow Yesterday Today (FDN109) Unit Reader 2011, 159-166.  Murdoch, WA: Murdoch University.

Thiroux, Jacques P., and Keith W. Krasemann. 2009. The Nature of Morality: Selection. In Ethics: Theory and Practice, 6-7; 13-16. Reprinted in Tomorrow Yesterday Today (FDN109) Unit Reader 2011, 167-172.  Murdoch, WA: Murdoch University.