Earlier this week, Clive Hamilton, Professor of Public Ethics at the Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics, threatened to boycott Australian e-journal On Line Opinion because it publishes article by so-called 'climate change denialists'. Today, the journal's Chief Editor, Graham Young, responds:
“The idea that truth is relative has taken over some areas of the humanities through postmodernism, theory and forms of Marxist analysis. That's the school that Clive Hamilton's argument on global warming comes from… We instinctively know that things do have objective reality and are not power constructs. That it doesn't matter how many people say it is true if it isn't."
In today's article Graham Young emphasises the importance of trying to understand the facts-of-the matter rather than as Clive Hamilton does, deferring to authority.
While Clive Hamilton has decided that "there was no way I could pretend to have a comprehensive grasp of climate science … [so] I had to decide not what to believe but whom to believe."
Graham responds, “How do you decide who to believe if you have abdicated your right to analyse the arguments?”
Again on the subject of the truth Graham writes: “We believe that there is such a thing as the truth, and that it is out there, even if none of us will ever perceive it more than dimly.”
According to Graham one way of discovering the truth is to “welcome lobbyists as well as academics, politicians, activists and citizens. We want to put citizens in touch with decision makers and those with influence, and we don't differentiate between them because they might have a particular point of view, or draw their paycheck from a particular source.
“Our fundamental tenet is that while there is such a thing as the truth it demands constant mining and refining for it to be discerned, and that it is not our place to tell others what to think. Consenting adults can come to this site [On Line Opinion] and see opposing arguments laid out before them and make-up their own minds. Clive is under-estimating the ability of our average reader.
“An ethical approach to argument avoids ad hominem attacks and concentrates on facts and arguments. It treats its opponent's arguments with respect, and doesn't misrepresent them, and it researches its own arguments thoroughly and presents them honestly.”
------------
Silencing dissent
http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=7596&page=1
The Sad Demise of On Line Opinion
http://onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=7580
Excellent, Steve, but I'd also say that there is really nothing new about the phenomenon except its scale and perhaps its insidious onset. It is just the latest, grandest, example of the Madness of Crowds.
===============================
Steve Short, a very cogent analysis. I'll bookmark that. Thanks.
When 'Steve' (not me) writes:
"PS. Labelling another's viewpoint as "postmodern" and raising the spectre of relative truth when characterising another's opinion is a (currently very trendy in the blogosphere) form of ad-hominem criticism, and should be frowned upon by those interested in real debate."
This is a fatuous point to make when the whole edifice of AGW orthodoxy now routinely bolsters it's continued authority (especially after 10 years of a hiatus in global warming) by resorting to a whole host of "very trendy ad-hominem" labels for climate sceptics ranging from Clive Hamilton's favourite 'denialists' through to Hansen's 'global criminals'.
I am the mildest of climate sceptics - a 'lukewarmer' if you will who has reached an opinion, based on a background of a long career in geoscience that CO2 sensitivity (delta T caused by a doubling of CO2) is only likely to lie in the range of about 0.75 - 1.25 degrees.
Yet I have sat in an on-campus public lectures and listened to real heavy duty sceptics (e.g. Lindzen) patiently working though a valid scientific critique of a particular tenet of AGW catastrophism only to invariably be howled down by a crowd of lightweight graduates (and undergraduates) resembling nothing so much as a baying pack of religious zealots attending an Inquisition torture session.
Yet when pressed to provide coherent technical rebuttals almost every single one who stood up has generally soon revealed a startling mindset which can only be described as a belief that somehow, reality itself is actually modified by the collective human will. In a nutshell - post-modernism.
IMHO, this is actually one of the keys to the problem of where we now find ourselves in the evolution of modern 21st century political correctness.
In many aspects (e.g. 'ocean acidification will be here by 2060') modern political correctness is now firmly grounded in de facto repudiation of the principles of the Enlightenment.
This is the disastrous outcome of at least 3 decades of the post-modernist corruption of academic standards, both in the humanities and even (alas) in part in the sciences.
Darak W
"how things are out in the real world."
Almost agreed with you, until, this quote!
"Claiming academic titles and affiliations seems to be a common ploy."
Claiming some sort of knowledge and expertise appears to be a common ploy on this weblog. Lots of armchair enthusiasts who are way out of their field and like to poke and prod with some self-bestowed authority. When they are challenged they resort to smear and attack and divert the attention away from the real issue. Why anyone decides to enter into any sort of meaningful dialogue with the majority of you would probably be a great masters project in psychology.
"Perhaps the Web site administrators have been either reading this blog or OLO."
Yes, it is highly likely that someone would use this fora for someting useful. Don't you guys realise that this site is a source of great entertainment?
"This practice of claiming academic affiliation has been seen in the Tasmanian pulp mill debate. A Tom Baxter was recently identified by the media as “University of Tasmania accounting and corporate governance school lecturer" when commenting on the action of the Tasmanian Government, but on checking the school’s web site his position title is PhD scholarship holder, eg a STUDENT."
A person can be a lecturer and a student. The two are not mutually exclusive. It seems that some here just can't grasp how things are out in the real world.
Correction to my above post its Professor Wadsley of Curtin University, somehow I typed Deakin.
Claiming academic titles and affiliations seems to be a common ploy. Both Ian Mott and Keiran confirm that Clive Hamilton was not listed on the CAPPE web site as a professor or member of its academic staff.
This was the case a few days ago at the time of my original post, however in double checking for this post the CAPPE home page has, after scrolling down to the bottom of the page this “Professor Clive Hamilton joins CAPPE as Professor of Public Ethics at Charles Sturt University”.
Perhaps the Web site administrators have been either reading this blog or OLO.
So my apologies for doubting OLO's description of him.
This practice of claiming academic affiliation has been seen in the Tasmanian pulp mill debate. A Tom Baxter was recently identified by the media as “University of Tasmania accounting and corporate governance school lecturer" when commenting on the action of the Tasmanian Government, but on checking the school’s web site his position title is PhD scholarship holder, eg a STUDENT.
Another example in the pulp mill debate is the author of the part of the Greens submissions, a recent ‘expert witness’ in the Lawyers for Forests Federal Court Case and author of many critiques of Tasmania’s pulp mill as Professor Wadsley of the Deakin University ( see ABC 7 30 report June 2007 Professor Andrew Wadsley, Petroleum Technology, Curtin University) a check of the Curtin Staff at staff.curtin.edu.au returns no result on a search of “Wadsley”.
If Clive has chosen to retreat from the field of battle, so be it. Defeat in an honorable conflict is not necessarily dishonor.
But whining about it--that's sad. He can't leave the field with his shield, won't be borne away lying atop his shield, so what does he do?
Raise his voice among the mourner's parade. Goodbye, Clive. Perhaps you'll find honor among the effete snobs. Here's a hanky.