“Our entire civilization is living the way a middle-age alcoholic, who is starting to realize all the trouble they caused, lives…But then decides they are going to keep drinking…” Duncan Trussell on climate change, Joe Rogan Experience #1313
When I was a child my mother told me to “wear a helmet” when I rode my bike. Of course, I never did. One day my friends and I invented a game in which one person, would ride a bike down the road as fast as they could, while two people, on either side of the road, would throw dodge-balls at the person riding the bike. As you can probably guess, this didn’t end well for me. I was pedaling as fast as I could when a ball wedged itself between the concrete and my front tire, which sent me flying over the handle-bars. I landed face first and the bike landed on top of my head, splitting it open. Most of us have had this experience at some point in our lives (or at least a comparable one): An authority figure tells us to do or not do something, and we choose to act against their advice.
Duncan’s analogy refers to what happens when we receive medical advice from a healthcare provider, which conflicts with our daily practices or beliefs. Let’s stick with the example of an alcoholic. A 30-year-old alcoholic goes to the doctor for a checkup. The doctor tells him that his alcoholism is killing him, and that if he doesn’t stop drinking he will be dead by 40. Our imaginary alcoholic may not believe the doctor: “Well my whole family drank, and they lived until they were 90.” Or, he or she may choose to accept the prognosis, yet continue drinking: “I know it’s gonna kill me, but I don’t care.”
In both cases, there is a sort of denial present, a denial rooted in “common sense.” Common sense is tremendously problematic for various reasons; one, the belief that common sense is a form of knowledge is flawed, and two, the relationship of common sense to science is non-existent. In the first case the alcoholic doesn’t believe the doctor because of what he “knows” to be true: the common-sense knowledge of his family history, and/or his personal experience. The second point is a bit trickier. Here, the alcoholic accepts the doctor’s knowledge (science), but chooses to act against it anyway. This could be the result of a failure to imagine the future, or simply a weakness of willpower. (Think of St. Paul’s, “For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do.”)[1]
The history of science demonstrates the ways in which scientific discovery develops over and against other forms of knowledge. What stands out in the history of science is the juxtaposition of science and common sense. For example, what makes the Copernician revolution “revolutionary” is its reliance on mathematical reasoning as opposed to “common sense” observational reasoning. As the philosopher of science Mary Tiles reiterates, a hallmark of scientific rationality is that it “breaks with common sense.”[2]
Returning to the analogy, and its relation to climate change: A majority of scientists (97% or more) agree that global warming is most likely the result of human activity.[3] Like the alcoholic, we can deny this in two ways. First, we can deny that the scientists with advanced degrees in their field, who have dedicated their lives to working on the topic, are wrong. Second, we could believe that the future will resemble the present, and just ignore the experts. There is a third option, which is inherently nihilistic. We could say “Who cares?” and choose not to make any changes, despite the consequences. Either way, the point of the analogy is clear--the alcoholic is making a stupid decision. You may not understand scientific reasoning, or it may not resemble your common sense, but that doesn’t mean it’s wrong. In fact, it ought to be seen as a good thing that science breaks with common sense. This rupture allows us to imagine futures previously unimaginable and situations vastly different than our own. Now, all we are left with is the choice between responsibility and nihilism. Do we accept the authority’s judgement, and take responsibility for our actions, or do we reject it, and watch the world burn?
By Michael Granado, A Front Porch Philosopher
[1] Romans 7:15, NIV.
[2] Mary Tiles, Bachelard: Science and Objectivity (London; Cambridge university press, 1984), 12.