Brandis confuses right to be heard with right to be taken seriously
Believers in alien abduction do not have a right to be taken
seriously, and nor do those who simply reject the evidence of climate
change.
Photobank gallery/Shutterstock
In a recent interview,
federal attorney-general George Brandis laments that deniers of climate
science are being “excluded” from the debate. On the surface this seems
a justifiable complaint, but the point hangs on what he means by
“excluded”. Brandis said he was:
…really shocked by the sheer authoritarianism of those
who would have excluded from the debate the point of view of people who
were climate change deniers.
The literal sense of “excluded” implies that no commentary is permitted that does not resonate with accepted scientific wisdom
on climate change. This is clearly not the case. Australia boasts one
of the world’s best examples of mainstream climate science denial,
evident in both expressed political opinion and in the provision of media platforms for those wishing to express such views.
A more figurative sense of “exclusion” might be that those who do not
accept the scientific findings are under social or political pressure
to keep silent. This is where it gets interesting.
Echoes of vaccination and evolution ‘debates’
Debates over disparate areas such as vaccination and creationism
survive because of a call to see both sides of the coin. The truth, at
least for these issues, is that there is no coin. To pretend otherwise
is to perpetuate an irrational approach.
Climate change is not as well understood as vaccination or evolution,
and I would not put deniers of climate science in the same camp as
anti-vaccination and anti-evolution movements, but there is an
increasing trend among them all to adopt similar methods.
The most obvious of these is appealing to the right to be heard, to
see both sides of the coin. Brandis hopes that our natural repulsion at
excluding a particular view from the public arena will be aroused in
support of climate science denial. This, however, ignores a vital
characteristic of public debate: when ideas suffer body blows of
sustained scientific refutation any attempt to maintain their status by
appeal to an equal right of hearing is also an attempt to exempt them
from evidential requirements and argumentative rigour.
Daniel Munoz/AAP
The rules of rational engagement demand evidence and argument, not
repetitive appeals for a fair hearing. If the evidence in support of a
view is not forthcoming, or if the arguments in its favour are weak, its
public profile should diminish.
The very nature of a fair hearing is that evidence is weighed and
arguments heard, and the ultimate fate of an idea should be a function
of this process. This is not to say that it can never be resurrected,
or that investigation cannot continue, but simply that it must lose
epistemic credibility in proportion to its failings. Anything else is
dogma, and this is what much of climate science denial has become.
Brandis has confused the right to speak an idea with the non-existent
right that the idea be given credibility. He says in the interview that
the scientific community and its supporters simply attempt to
delegitimise “the views of those who disagree, rather than engaging with
them intellectually and showing them why they are wrong”. This is
demonstrably false, as many attempts are regularly made to do just that.
Continually arguing for the right to engage and then refusing
engagement is what earns the moniker “denier”. The explanation by
“sceptics” of climate science, vaccination and evolution
given to cover lack of engagement centres on conspiracy theories.
Conspiracies of scientists, political movements and business interests
supposedly explain the absence of argument.
Demanding a false balance of beliefs
The fact is that deniers of climate science are as free as anyone
else to make their case. That the case is not being made is not a
function of suppression, it is result of lack of evidence.
Other similarities with vaccination and evolution include
contemptuous use of the word “believe” (also seen in the Spiked
interview), which assumes an equality of cognition between belief in
climate science and belief in, say, alien abduction. It ignores that
belief can be the result of blind acceptance or the weight of evidence.
It also portraits belief as a weakness and scepticism as a strength, but
belief is not weakness if it based on evidence and argument, and
scepticism is not strength if there is no engagement.
It’s bad enough that the right to be heard is misunderstood or
misrepresented as the right to be taken seriously, but this is happening
in the domain of public policy.
There is a difference between public expression of an idea and urging
public support for that idea. The former is a statement of opinion;
the latter is a call for government action (or inaction). Brandis seems
to want climate science denial front and centre in debates of public
policy, in the same manner that a false balance has been delivered through media representation of the issue.
It’s one thing for media organisations or community groups to attempt
to represent scientific consensus as they will, but it is qualitatively
different and far more dangerous for governments to do the same.
Australians have the right to expect their government to act on
evidence, not to promote false balance.
Deniers of climate science are not being excluded, they are being
asked to step up. That they are failing to do so is nobody’s fault but
their own.
No comments:
Post a Comment