Derek, please call me Fil.
We actually agree. If I gave a different impression, then I miswrote
and I appreciate you pointing it out.
I don't consider a "view" the same as a "fact." The holocaust etc are
facts. To deny facts is irrational. I strive to be as rational as
possible. Philosophers might argue how we can know a fact, but I'm
not that complicated in my thinking.
To have a view means having a view on something, which to me means
there have to be things to view. Those things are facts. I guess I'm
talking about the interpretation of fact rather than the fact itself;
what the facts mean.
I have often found that I've been able to strengthen my own views - or
accept that they are flawed and revise them - by comparing them with
the views of others.
That's what I intended.
Does this clear things up?
Cheers.
Fil
On 21 March 2011 17:43, Derek B. Miller <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Small thing here, but no, alternative views are not always worth
> considering.
> Some refer to it as the "criteria of debatability". Lawyers make use of this
> criteria and it is fundamental.
> One does not entertain a discussion about whether the Holocaust happened
> because the claim does not meet the criteria of debatability. It is simply
> not debatable. Nor is the battle of Waterloo, the Norman invasion or the
> earthquake that just killed thousands.
> It is in fact essential to be judicious about what arguments we choose to
> entertain and which we do not.
> I have no particular comment to make concerning global warming, but there is
> a worrying trend about these days that suggests there is no way to really
> know anything, and so every point of view is worth hearing. The consequences
> of such a position could be catastrophic.
> I use Mr. Salutri's casual usage here (in an effort to be accommodating, to
> be sure) as a moment to mention this.
> dbm
>
> _____________
> Derek B. Miller
> Director
> The Policy Lab
> 321 Columbus Ave.
> Seventh Floor of the Electric Carriage House
> Boston, MA 02116
> United States of America
> Phone
> +1 617 440 4409
> Twitter
> @Policylabtweets
> Web
> www.thepolicylag.org
>
> On Monday, March 21, 2011 at 10:22 PM, Filippo A. Salustri wrote:
>
> Alternative views are always worth considering, if for no other reason
> that they provide tests to validate the 'convention.'
> My reading of the current research is that the notion of climate
> change stands up to all credible tests. So I'm still going to play
> the odds.
>
> I worry about the proposal to increase the number of scientists
> (presumably not only physicists, but chemists, biologists, etc would
> all have things to contribute). The scientists we do have aren't
> sufficiently trusted anymore, I think. More of them might just make
> matters worse.
>
> I do think that politics plays a very large role in things. And I'm
> unconvinced it is a good role. For what it's worth, I will continue
> to remain a-political and focus on the scientific aspects of things.
> I just find the political aspects insufficiently robust to use as a
> basis for reasoning about things. I know that puts me at a
> disadvantage in today's world, but I do what I can.
>
> Cheers.
> Fil
>
> On 21 March 2011 17:06, Lubomir Savov Popov <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> Dear Anthony,
>
> My objective was to provide an alternative view regarding the situation. I
> carefully follow the idea of global warming and also consider several
> alternative perspectives and scenarios.
>
> It is interesting that scoring the literature in different languages brings
> us to different traditions and alternative views. Right or wrong, it is
> interesting to consider them. One never knows what is right. Check the
> history of phlogiston.
>
> I also wanted to raise several alternative issues that I believe are not
> emphasized enough or are overshadowed with the warming concern. These are
> new energies, deforestation, and pollution. In the short term, they might be
> crucial for health and quality of life.
>
> About energy density. You have detected a trend. My expectation is that we
> are moving along this trend towards energies of higher densities. What kind?
> I am not engaging in predictions. However, it will be something that we
> already know and have discarded as unfeasible. Such a view is derived from
> history of technology.
>
> If the money for green design and products are put towards a program on new
> energies and engines, including natural science and engineering education,
> over a 20 year period, those money might be used more productively. If the
> TARP money that were given for free to the banks (about one trillion
> dollars) were used for such a fund, we might have come with something good.
> We need more people in physics, more talent in physics, instead of in the
> financial banks. We need years to build those people, and meanwhile we need
> to work on new energies and engines.
>
> We are talking for 40-50 years about new energy sources and new engines, but
> the investments in research and education are miniscule.
>
> I read a few days ago about the electric cars from the period 1890-1910. To
> my surprise, they were doing 20-80 miles without charging. Actually, at the
> beginning of the automotive era the electric car outpaced the cars with
> internal combustion engine. However, they very quickly lost the completion.
> We are back a hundred years. I don't believe that electric cars are the
> future, but this illustrates the trajectories of human inventions and
> technical progress.
>
> Several people mentioned the political forces. That might be the key. While
> big oil rules, we will fight for oil. And we will make chemical batteries
> for electric cars.
>
> Just some musing.
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Lubomir
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and related
> research in Design [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Anthony
> Thompson
> Sent: Monday, March 21, 2011 12:35 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Design, global warming, equilibrium mechanisms, and resilience
> of the humankind
>
> Hi Charlotte and Lubomir,
>
> Good discussion starting here!
>
> I want to challenge some of the things that Lubomir says, however.
>
> Global warming: Lubomir says "we are not sure yet". But what is it that we
> are not sure of? "We" -- if we mean the global scientific community studying
> climatology, (and not "we- the general public") have quite a lot of
> certainty that humans are influencing climate beyond anything that can be
> explained by Milankovitch cycles (earth's tilt, etc.). We (the former) know
> with quite a lot of certainty that the temperature now is warmer than
> anything that society as we know it has experienced.
>
> Re: meteorology being the west's foundations for predictions... well, not
> really in the climate models that are widely used. Meteorology - primarily
> related to weather processes forecasting - is about short-term (weather) and
> is quite a lot different than long-term (climate).
>
> Ice melt... is changing in very significant ways -- it's too simple to say
> that it's simply melting & regenerating. Glacial ice is not re-forming
> anywhere near the rate at which it's melting. This leads to huge problems
> for water supplies, especially in some of the areas of the world with the
> highest populations (e.g. India, Bangladesh, some areas in China and South
> America). Arctic ice is thinning: so that now ice melts more completely in
> the summer months than in anytime since human society as we know it has
> developed. So while the ice does re-form in the winter, it is not as thick,
> and there is not "old ice" that has been around for centuries. Summer ice
> melt leads to major concerns of reduced albedo, leading to reinforcing
> cycles of increased energy absorption.
>
> Deforestation... is a huge concern within discussion of the global carbon
> cycle, and solutions to global warming can not be discussed without
> discussing the role of forests. Not sure why you would say that westerners
> don't care about it... any more / less than westerners care about other
> things. I mean that those who understand some of the complexities certainly
> DO understand the importance of forests, while those who sit back and
> question whether or not humans are influencing climate may not.
>
> My point: there is quite a lot of certainty around the idea that humans are
> impacting the climate. There is MUCH LESS certainty about what the effects
> of what we are doing will be... increased temperatures / precipitation here,
> decreased temps / precip there. I think it's important that we -- as
> scientists -- be accurate on these points.
>
> With regard to energy transitions... the challenge now is that there is now
> energy source that provides energy density. In previous energy transitions,
> society has been able to move to a more energy dense energy source... coal
> had more energy per unit than wood, and oil had more energy per unit than
> oil. As we face the end of oil... we do not have an energy source to move to
> that is more dense than what we are using now. The sun provides 10,000x the
> amount of energy that human society uses... but we do not have a good way to
> capture it, let alone transport it after we capture it.
>
> This is what the "sustainability" movement is doing: bringing together all
> of these separate issues (global warming, deforestation, ocean
> acidification, freshwater access, energy, pollution, etc. etc. et.c) to say
> that we (global society) has lots of problems that affect different people
> in different ways. Some of those sustainability people are able to portray
> this as an ocean full of opportunities... rather than a lot of reasons to be
> depressed!
>
> I agree very much with Charlotte's point that media reporting greatly
> influences society's perception of environmental (and social) problems. The
> challenge in the west is the increasing rate of ownership of media by big /
> private industry... which often has a motive to increase profits n the way
> of the status quo... which is often destructive of the global system.
>
> Our role... as researchers working with product/service design... can/should
> be to finds way for businesses to do what they need to do (be profitable) in
> ways that do not destroy ecological and social systems. To do this, we need
> both radically new approaches to meeting human needs... while also meeting
> people who are doing design / product development work on a day-to-day basis
> to provide the incremental innovations that bring them along. I'd like to
> open up a discussion about how we can support that to happen...
>
>
>
> --
> Filippo A. Salustri, Ph.D., P.Eng.
> Mechanical and Industrial Engineering
> Ryerson University
> 350 Victoria St, Toronto, ON
> M5B 2K3, Canada
> Tel: 416/979-5000 ext 7749
> Fax: 416/979-5265
> Email: [log in to unmask]
> http://deseng.ryerson.ca/~fil/
>
>
--
Filippo A. Salustri, Ph.D., P.Eng.
Mechanical and Industrial Engineering
Ryerson University
350 Victoria St, Toronto, ON
M5B 2K3, Canada
Tel: 416/979-5000 ext 7749
Fax: 416/979-5265
Email: [log in to unmask]
http://deseng.ryerson.ca/~fil/
|