Should Climate Scientists Fly?

IF 0.9 3区哲学 0 PHILOSOPHY

Informal Logic Pub Date : 2020-07-06 DOI:10.22329/il.v40i2.6327

J. Goodwin

引用次数: 7

Abstract

I inquire into argument at the system level, exploring the controversy over whether climate scientists should fly. I document participants’ knowledge of a skeptical argument that because scientists fly, they cannot testify credibly about the climate emergency. I show how this argument has been managed by pro-climate action arguers, and how some climate scientists have developed parallel reasoning, articulating a sophisticated case why they will be more effective in the controversy if they fly less. Finally, I review some strategies arguers deploy to use the arguments of others against them. I argue that only by attending to argument-making at the system level can we understand how arguers come to know the resources for argument available in a controversy and to think strategically about how to use them. I call for more work on argument at the system level.

查看原文本刊更多论文

气候科学家应该坐飞机吗?

我调查了系统层面的争论，探讨了气候科学家是否应该飞行的争议。我记录了参与者对一个怀疑论点的了解，即由于科学家飞行，他们无法对气候紧急情况作出可信的证明。我展示了支持气候行动的辩论者是如何处理这一争论的，以及一些气候科学家是如何发展出平行推理的，阐明了一个复杂的案例，为什么如果他们少坐飞机，他们在这场争论中会更有效。最后，我回顾了辩论者使用别人的论点来反对他们的一些策略。我认为，只有在系统层面上参与论证，我们才能理解辩论者是如何了解争论中可用的论证资源，并战略性地思考如何使用它们的。我呼吁在系统层面上进行更多的论证工作。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Informal Logic PHILOSOPHY-

CiteScore

1.50

自引率

0.00%

发文量

审稿时长

12 weeks

期刊介绍： Informal Logic publishes articles that advance the dialectic in reasoning and argumentation theory and practice. Primary criteria for the acceptance of articles with a theoretical focus or interest are: (1) the article advances the dialectic or constitutes an interesting comment on it: it presents a cogent argument, objection, interpretation or position that is an advance in relation to the background of issues and controversies on the topic; or it casts the issue addressed in a new and worthwhile light; and (2) the article makes explicit reference to the pertinent literature on its topic, and it discharges the burden of proof imposed by that scholarship. Primary criteria for acceptance of articles devoted to the teaching of informal logic, critical thinking or argumentation include: originality; utility; timeliness; and evidence of the effectiveness of the methods, materials, technologies, etc., proposed. The standard criteria for scholarly publication—topical fit with the subjects covered in the journal; adequacy of coverage to the issue addressed; clarity, organization and literateness of the prose; conceptual clarity and cogency of argumentation—apply ceteris paribus to the selection of all articles, notes and reviews.