How We Know What We Know - and Why it Matters

Both Jesse and Mahony's article were at the very core discussing epistemology. Epistemology is generally related to the study of philosophy and examines how we know what we know: or the process of creating knowledge. Despite Jessy’s hedging during class, I really appreciated her article that thought it necessary to the discussion. I’m not sure why students would not like it!

Jessy is an anthropologist of scientists, so her specialization is studying the cultural practices and norms of those engaging in climate science practice. Her examination of two hiccups in the scientific debate regarding ACC: 1.) a transpositional error that predicted the collapse of Himalayan glaciers by 2035 and 2.) the collapse of the West Antarctic ice sheet not including the full extent of melting demonstrate the nitty-gritty details of the scientific debate. This also shows us the necessity of peer review and its weaknesses, Jessy suggests further auditing to mitigate this problem. They also show us potential strategies that ACC “skeptics” might use in order to discredit science they do not accept.

It is also important, I think, for scientists to admit what they do not know. A lot of the resentment that many undereducated people feel towards climate science has something to do with a “know-it-all” perception of scientists. So, rather than taking refuge in the Ivory Tower of academia, scientists must more thoroughly engage with the public.

A scientist may argue, “That’s not my job, I belong in the lab.” This is a cultural construct that plays on societal stereotypes of scientists as stuffy, awkward people with poor communication skills. Cultural constructs and societal outlooks, thankfully, are subject to change and scientists must make this change happen. There are several transparency measures such as peer review, but if these measures are not taken in a way that the public understands it matters little outside the academic-journal circuit. Not only that, but many workers in non-science fields are impacted by a shrinking world due to globalization, social media and increasingly democratic/bottom-up cultural practices and saying “that’s not my job” when it is clearly essential will result in that person losing their job. Academics are a little more insulated from this, and this could also be behind some popular resentment of scientists. Most importantly, scientists must descend from their Ivory Tower and engage in the vigorous debate Jessy and Mahony illustrate so well: what do we know, and how?