I had a bit of a shock today when I realised that if I receive new information I tend to believe it if it fits in with my already firmly-held beliefs but discount it if it challenges that which I hold dear. It reminded me of a book I read some years ago 'The Structure of Scientific Revolutions' by Tomas Kuhn who suggested (if I'm remembering it right) that if a scientist comes across something which doesn't fit in with his theory he will tend to set it aside as an aberration or mistake and will only accept as legitimate data which support his theory.
When a friend sent me a link this week to an article by Matt Ridley called 'Another renewable myth goes up in smoke' and which supported fracking (which I don't) I decided to find out a bit about said Matt Ridley, so that I could take a considered view of whether to believe him or not. So, I Googled - like you do!
There's no doubt Matt Ridley is a clever bloke. But, then he would be because he had every opportunity by being educated at Eton and Oxford. He's written lots of very clever-sounding scientific books and seems to know what he's talking about. No problem there. He's a Viscount, a member of the Conservative Party and sits in the House of Lords. Bit worrying cos he's rich so he's probably got vested interests. But, worst of all, he believes that free enterprise unshackled from the constraints of government control, can bring the good life to us all. Well, you don't have to look too far today to see that corporation profits are taking precedence over democracy, human well-being and the protection of the environment.
So, sorry Lord Ridley, because I'm not quite up to getting to grips with the science of where best to get our energy from, I'm having to rely on the views of other writers who have studied these things and who share my world view and beliefs. Those writers who believe that because of global warming we should cut back on our energy use and leave the fossil fuels in the ground. There are many, many writers who hold that view and I'm happy to be in their camp.
When I hear information that seems to be at odds with what I know, I always ask myself if the person purveying the information has a vested interest and if he is willing to live cheek-by-jowl with whatever he is promoting. I would assume that if Ridley believes free enterprise needs to be unshackled from government constraints, he is totally opposed to bailing out banks and other corporations that are insolvent. I would also assume he is willing to have fracking occur outside his garden door and that he will guarantee his neighbors have pure water and no earthquakes. If he is willing to undertake these activities and guarantees, I will then listen to his arguments in favor of fracking.
ReplyDelete