By Linda Petrusi
There are crime/science programmes on television where we are shown how the facts of a crime can be discovered through the smallest sorts of evidence. Programmes like these are designed to convince viewers as well as entertain them. In this context, a fact discovered might more properly be perceived as a theory, just as the evidence used is also evidence in theory. If we rely on the logic of evidence to discover facts, what we end up with is one theoretical construction used to discover another theoretical construction. (Gould: 2007)
 |
Linda Petrusi holds a BA in
International Studies, a Minor in
Black Studies, a certificate in
mediation and will shortly
complete her Masters in Conflict
Resolution. Feedback to:
linda@caribbeannetnews.com |
Theories are a result of imagination, inspiration or vision and not necessarily any particular logic (or scientific method). This is because logic is nothing more than the relationship of conclusions and premises, which are other words for facts and evidence. Therefore, the process of science is not the process of rule-following or standard practice. The process of science depends on imagination, inspiration or vision.
This brings me to the subject of global warming. Science is and always has been subjective. If it were truly objective, there would be no need for any debate on global warming. The fact that science is perceived as objective is the reason why global warming has become a polarising dilemma. For every “scientific fact” that states that global warming is going to destroy us all in five years, there is “scientific fact” that tries to convince us that this is a “normal” climatic phenomenon.
The “fact” is that these are nothing more than theories. Indeed, much of what I have read about global warming sounds more like high school debate teams, trying to win the championship, through their set of facts and evidence.
I prefer to “think as one is inclined to think” -- a priori -- when it comes to global warming. I am more inclined to believe that the air that some people breathe makes their eyes sting and causes their children to be born with asthma is not good. Nor do I think it is good when fish begin to mutate and end up with three eyes. It does not matter to me what the scientists have to say, all that matters is that it just does not seem right for fish to have three eyes.
It disturbs me when one country pollutes the air for economic gain, while the neighboring country has no choice but to eventually breathe that air. The wind does not understand, nor cares about geographical boundaries. Therefore, it makes sense to me to convince the country that is polluting the air to stop doing it by whatever means necessary. However, there is more than just one country that pollutes, which causes a problem, which eventually will affect everyone. And since it will affect everyone; it makes sense for those countries that have the financial resources to create financial incentives to encourage other countries not to pollute. However, it is just my imagination and vision that compels me to state this.
One of the things that conflict resolution understands is the importance of knowing when the time is ripe to begin serious dialogue. With respect to global warming, the time has not yet arrived. As long as both sides of the debate refuse to get off of their “high horses” (which is common when there is conflict), all the rest of us can do is wait for them to be quiet. Eventually they will come down from their horses because the environment will demand it of them. In the meantime, it might be helpful for the rest of us to take care of our own “environmental space” until the time is ripe for sincere, honest and good faith dialogue about the environment. |
