https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HgM1yhwj1mg
By William Briggs
Summary
'في هذه الخطابة التي ألقيت في المؤتمر الدولي العاشر حول التغير المناخي في عام 2015، يناقش ويليام بريغز كيف تصبح معتقدات الناس جزءًا من هويتهم. يبدأ بمناقشة الفروق بين العلماء والمدنيين. إذا تعلم المدني أن الأرض تدور حول الشمس، عادة ما يصدق ذلك. يثق المدنيون في كلمة العالم، حتى وإن لم يفهموا ميكانيكا المدار. هذا المعتقد غير مهم نسبياً في حياتهم اليومية، على الرغم من ذلك. يتناقض ذلك مع الإيمان الذي يحمله العديد من المدنيين بوجود الأجسام الطائرة غير المعروفة. معظم الخبراء يعارضون. الفرق بين حركة الكواكب والأجسام الطائرة غير المعروفة هو أن هذا هو شيء يرغبون في الإيمان به. من جزء من هويتهم الإيمان بوجود الأجسام الطائرة غير المعروفة. عندما يجادل الخبراء ضد الأجسام الطائرة غير المعروفة، يمكن أن يعزز الأمر الإيمان بهم. ولكن بخلاف أن يكونوا ضيوف العشاء المملين، لا يزال الإيمان بهم غير ضار نسبياً. ليس من الخطأ منطقياً أو نفسياً أن يكون لدى شخص الرغبة في الإيمان بشيء (أن الطائرات تطير أو أن حبة تشفي من مرض) . الناس يؤمنون بتلك الأشياء لأنهم رأوها تعمل. أن العلماء يتفقون مع ذلك مريح، ولكنه ليس أمرًا ضروريًا. عندما يتعلق الأمر بالتغير المناخي، غالبا ما يعارض المدنيون الخبراء الحقيقيين بشدة. وهناك تنوع كبير في الآراء بين الخبراء لدرجة أنه من المدهش أن يمكن قول أي شيء مفيد حول التغير المناخي. الأشخاص الذين ليس لديهم فهم لعلوم المناخ يهاجمون العلماء الذين يعارضون آرائهم. "الحل" للتغير المناخي يتضمن عادة استخدام سلطة الحكومة للقضاء على "رأس المالية غير المقيدة." يجب تنظيم أي أنشطة تؤثر على البيئة أو حظرها. الأشخاص الذين يؤمنون بالحقيقة يرغبون في "الحل". الدعوة إلى ذلك هي جزء من هويتهم، لذا فأي شك في الحل هو هجوم شخصي ضدهم. يطالبون بإقالة المتشككين في "الحل"، أو مقاضاتهم، أو حتى قتلهم. إذا كان البحث الجديد قد يزعزع إيمانهم، فيجب أن يتوقف البحث الجديد. السياسيون يوافقون على ذلك، لأنهم يعتقدون أنهم هم الحل. لدى بريغز تجربة شخصية في هذا المجال. بعد نشره لورقة بحثية تنتقد الإجماع حول المناخ، تعرض للتهديد من قبل المدنيين وتحقيق من قبل أعضاء مجلس النواب والشيوخ. في الاتحاد السوفيتي، قام ليسنكو بتخويف العلماء الآخرين لقبول نظرياته. أُقيل الأشخاص المؤيدين للعلم "غير السياسي الصحيح" (المصطلح الفعلي الذي استخدموه)، واعتقلوا، وحتى قتلوا. سيكون تغيير الثقافة أمرًا صعبًا. يجب إقناع الناس بأن الحكومة ليست الحل، بل جزء من المشكلة. يعتقد بريغز أن الناس ليسوا عبارة عن عذاب ضد البيئة، بل جزء حيوي من الطبيعة.'
'في خطاب ألقاه في عام 2015، تحدث ويليام بريغز عن كيف يمكن أن تصبح معتقدات الناس جزءًا من هويتهم. قال إن هناك فرقاً بين العلماء والأشخاص العاديين. إذا أخبر عالم شخصًا عاديًا أن الأرض تدور حول الشمس، عادة ما يصدقونه. يثق الأشخاص العاديون بالعلماء، حتى لو لم يفهموا العلم. ولكن سواء أمنت الشخص أم لا أن الأرض تدور حول الشمس لا يغير حياتهم اليومية. قارن هذا ببعض الأشخاص الذين يعتقدون في وجود الأجسام الطائرة غير المعروفة. هذا يتعارض مع ما يعتقده معظم الخبراء. الفرق هو أن بعض الناس يرغبون في الاعتقاد بوجود الكائنات الفضائية. يصبح الإيمان بالأجسام الطائرة غير المعروفة جزءًا من هويتهم. عندما يقول الخبراء إن الأجسام الطائرة غير المعروفة ليست حقيقية، يمكن أن يجعل إيمانهم أقوى. يمكن أن يكونوا مزعجين، ولكن هذه المعتقدات ليست ضارة جدا. ليس لأن شخص يريد أن يعتقد في شيء ما يعني أنه غير منطقي أو خاطئ. الناس يصدقون الأشياء التي رأوها. من الطبيعي أن يشعروا بالراحة إذا كان العلماء متفقين، لكنه ليس أمرًا ضروريًا. فيما يتعلق بتغير المناخ، غالباً ما يختلف الأشخاص العاديين بشدة عن الخبراء. الخبراء يختلفون في العديد من الأمور حول تغير المناخ، لذا من المدهش أنهم يستطيعون القول بشيء واضح حوله. الأشخاص العاديين الذين ليس لديهم تدريب في علوم المناخ يهاجمون العلماء الحقيقيين الذين يختلفون معهم. ال"حل" لتغير المناخ يتضمن عادة استخدام السلطة الحكومية لوقف الرأسمالية. يريدون تحديد أو وقف أي نشاط يؤثر على البيئة. المؤمنين الحقيقيين يريدون الاعتقاد في هذا الحل. هو جزء من هويتهم، لذا يشعرون بالاعتداء عندما يشك الناس فيهم. يتفق السياسيون، معتقدين أنهم هم الحل. لدى بريغز خبرة هنا. بعد نشره ورقة علمية تختلف مع الأفكار الشائعة حول تغير المناخ، تم تهديده والتحقيق فيه من قبل الكونغرس. في الاتحاد السوفيتي، استبد العالم القوي يدعى ليسينكو الآخرين للاعتقاد في نظرياته. تمت معاقبة أنصار "العلم غير السياسيًا الصحيح". سيكون تغيير الثقافة صعبا. يحتاج الناس إلى معرفة أن الحكومة ليست الحل، بل جزء من المشكلة. يعتقد بريغز أن الناس ليست في صدد تدمير الطبيعة، بل هم جزء مهم منها.'
--------- Original ---------
Transcript
Now there's two camps of civilians. One believes in global warming of doom, and one not.
Now, true believers desire the solution, which itself presupposes mankind is an environmental menace to these civilians. Global warming of doom exists because the solution does not.
Contrariwise The skeptical camp distrusts the solution and so just believes in global warming of doom. But be careful here. If global warming of doom is true, then it is irrelevant that its followers come to believe it because they desire the solution. Just as it is irrelevant that if a patient believes in the efficacy of his medication because he desires health.
On the other hand, if global warming of doom is false, then it is also irrelevant that its detractors come to disbelieve because they hate the solution.
And there is no symmetry here because who is right and who am wrong depends on whether global warming of doom is true, and it is almost certainly false.
The desperate need, the desperate desire to believe in the solution is why true believers consider questions about the science of global warming, of doom, personal attacks. They lash out when they hear them. Skeptics are greedy or have an animus against the poor believers shriek denier. The science is settled. They lapse into scientific incoherence and make impossible claims like we're destroying the planet. Or that this is my favorite, that we can stop climate change.
True believers say skeptical Scientists cannot be trusted because these scientists have been have been funded by sources who do not share the true belief. They never see the irony in this. They call for the firing of skeptical scientists or seek to ban their employment. Some true believers have descended into madness and demanded skeptical scientists be prosecuted or imprisoned for crimes against humanity.
And the reason for this childishness is simple. True believers are devoted to the solution to the environment. It is part of their environmental identity. It is who they are. If they cannot be who they are, then they are nothing.
If the science is settled to their satisfaction, unsettling it by conducting new research must be prevented because that new research might prove what cannot be tolerated. And there is no escaping this predicament.
This echoes what Bob said a bit without convincing true believers that environmentalism and the solution are false. And that can't be done with science. It requires a change in their deepest personal faiths, and that's a very tough task.
Now, politicians are like civilians in the sense that most of them don't possess in-depth scientific knowledge. And this is fine. Their skills lay elsewhere, like in relying upon the judgment of people who do have this knowledge. But there is a lesser breed of politician who is happy to profit from the ignorance of the citizens he represents. This politician believes in the solution. Rather, he believes in the civilians belief in the solution. This politician sees himself as the solution. Somebody has to be in charge and it ought to be him.
A member of the House of Representatives wrote letters to employers of several scientists. This member assumed or skeptics and demanded these employers hand over information regarding the scientists, emails, funding sources and so forth. The list was in some error, amusingly, but facts are irrelevant. Political action was what counted.
The member at least, at least had the intelligence to understand that if skeptical scientists successfully refuted global warming of doom, there would be no need for the solution and thus even less need for himself. And that a group of senators wrote letters to scores of companies who might have directly or indirectly funded skeptical scientists.
The senators were displeased about, quote, scientific studies designed to confuse the public and avoid taking action to cut carbon pollution. Confuse the public, prevent the solution. This is lysenkoism, the denouncement of anti-revolutionary research. Lysenko You have to remember, Lysenko not only had scientists fired for politically incorrect research, that was Lenin's term, but he had several of them executed and banished to labor camps.
But how do we prevent future political attacks? There's only one way that I see, and that's to remove the source of power of these scurrilous politicians. And what's that? True believers. So we're right back to the hard problem of changing culture itself. Can we convince civilians that big government is not the solution but the problem? And that man, it is not an environmental evil, but a necessary facet of nature. I'm not too sanguine. I think the task is very daunting. Thank you very much.
'في خطاب ألقاه في 2015، تحدث ويليام بريجز عن كيف يمكن أن تصبح معتقدات الناس جزءًا من هويتهم. قال إن هناك فرقًا بين العلماء والأشخاص العاديين. إذا علم الشخص العادي أن الأرض تدور حول الشمس، فعادةً ما يصدق ذلك. يثق الناس العاديون في العلماء، حتى بدون فهم العلم. لكن الاعتقاد بأن الأرض تدور حول الشمس لا يؤثر حقًا على حياتهم اليومية. قارن ذلك ببعض الناس الذين يؤمنون بوجود الأجسام الطائرة غير المعروفة. هذا يعارض ما يعتقده معظم الخبراء. الفرق هو أن الناس يريدون الاعتقاد بوجود الكائنات الفضائية. يصبح الاعتقاد بوجود الأجسام الطائرة غير المعروفة جزءًا من هويتهم. عندما يقول الخبراء إن الأجسام الطائرة غير المعروفة غير حقيقية، يمكن أن يجعل ذلك اعتقاداتهم أقوى. يمكن أن يكون المؤمنون بالأجسام الطائرة غير المعروفة مزعجين، لكنه ليس عادة ضارًا لأي شخص. فقط لأن شخصًا ما يريد أن يؤمن بشيء (مثل الطائرات يمكنها الطيران أو الدواء يشفي المرض) لا يعني أنه غير منطقي أو غير معقول. يؤمن الناس بتلك الأشياء لأنهم رأوها تعمل. من الجميل إذا اتفق العلماء، ولكنه ليس ضروريًا. بخصوص تغير المناخ، غالبًا ما يختلف الأشخاص العاديون بشدة مع الخبراء الحقيقيين. يختلف علماء المناخ في الكثير من النقاط، من المدهش أنهم يستطيعون قول أي شيء على الإطلاق. يهاجم الأشخاص الذين ليس لديهم تدريب في علم المناخ العلماء الذين يختلفون معهم. "الحل" لتغير المناخ غالبًا ما يتضمن استخدام سلطة الحكومة لوقف الرأسمالية غير المسيطرة عليها. يريدون تقييد أو حظر أي نشاط يؤثر على البيئة. يريد المؤمنون الحقيقيون هذا "الحل". الدعوة إليه جزء من هويتهم، لذا يشعر أي شك بأنه هجوم شخصي. يطالبون بمعاقبة الشكاكين. يتابع السياسيون، معتقدين أنهم الحل. لدى بريجز تجربة شخصية هنا. بعد نشره لورقة بحثية تنتقد وجهات النظر القائمة على الإجماع حول تغير المناخ، تم تهديده من قبل الناس العاديين وتحقيق مجلس الشيوخ به. في الاتحاد السوفيتي، تحرّض ليسينكو العلماء على قبول نظرياته. تم فصل أو اعتقال أو قتل مؤيدي العلم "غير السياسي الصحيح". سيكون تغيير الثقافة صعبًا. يحتاج الناس إلى التأكد من أن الحكومة ليست الحل، بل جزء من المشكلة. يعتقد بريجز أن البشر ليسوا يدمرون البيئة، بل هم جزء مهم من الطبيعة. التعليم المنزلي:'
--------- Original ---------
Transcript
Now there's two camps of civilians. One believes in global warming of doom, and one not.
Now, true believers desire the solution, which itself presupposes mankind is an environmental menace to these civilians. Global warming of doom exists because the solution does not.
Contrariwise The skeptical camp distrusts the solution and so just believes in global warming of doom. But be careful here. If global warming of doom is true, then it is irrelevant that its followers come to believe it because they desire the solution. Just as it is irrelevant that if a patient believes in the efficacy of his medication because he desires health.
On the other hand, if global warming of doom is false, then it is also irrelevant that its detractors come to disbelieve because they hate the solution.
And there is no symmetry here because who is right and who am wrong depends on whether global warming of doom is true, and it is almost certainly false.
The desperate need, the desperate desire to believe in the solution is why true believers consider questions about the science of global warming, of doom, personal attacks. They lash out when they hear them. Skeptics are greedy or have an animus against the poor believers shriek denier. The science is settled. They lapse into scientific incoherence and make impossible claims like we're destroying the planet. Or that this is my favorite, that we can stop climate change.
True believers say skeptical Scientists cannot be trusted because these scientists have been have been funded by sources who do not share the true belief. They never see the irony in this. They call for the firing of skeptical scientists or seek to ban their employment. Some true believers have descended into madness and demanded skeptical scientists be prosecuted or imprisoned for crimes against humanity.
And the reason for this childishness is simple. True believers are devoted to the solution to the environment. It is part of their environmental identity. It is who they are. If they cannot be who they are, then they are nothing.
If the science is settled to their satisfaction, unsettling it by conducting new research must be prevented because that new research might prove what cannot be tolerated. And there is no escaping this predicament.
This echoes what Bob said a bit without convincing true believers that environmentalism and the solution are false. And that can't be done with science. It requires a change in their deepest personal faiths, and that's a very tough task.
Now, politicians are like civilians in the sense that most of them don't possess in-depth scientific knowledge. And this is fine. Their skills lay elsewhere, like in relying upon the judgment of people who do have this knowledge. But there is a lesser breed of politician who is happy to profit from the ignorance of the citizens he represents. This politician believes in the solution. Rather, he believes in the civilians belief in the solution. This politician sees himself as the solution. Somebody has to be in charge and it ought to be him.
A member of the House of Representatives wrote letters to employers of several scientists. This member assumed or skeptics and demanded these employers hand over information regarding the scientists, emails, funding sources and so forth. The list was in some error, amusingly, but facts are irrelevant. Political action was what counted.
The member at least, at least had the intelligence to understand that if skeptical scientists successfully refuted global warming of doom, there would be no need for the solution and thus even less need for himself. And that a group of senators wrote letters to scores of companies who might have directly or indirectly funded skeptical scientists.
The senators were displeased about, quote, scientific studies designed to confuse the public and avoid taking action to cut carbon pollution. Confuse the public, prevent the solution. This is lysenkoism, the denouncement of anti-revolutionary research. Lysenko You have to remember, Lysenko not only had scientists fired for politically incorrect research, that was Lenin's term, but he had several of them executed and banished to labor camps.
But how do we prevent future political attacks? There's only one way that I see, and that's to remove the source of power of these scurrilous politicians. And what's that? True believers. So we're right back to the hard problem of changing culture itself. Can we convince civilians that big government is not the solution but the problem? And that man, it is not an environmental evil, but a necessary facet of nature. I'm not too sanguine. I think the task is very daunting. Thank you very much.
Transcript
Now there's two camps of civilians. One believes in global warming of doom, and one not.
Now, true believers desire the solution, which itself presupposes mankind is an environmental menace to these civilians. Global warming of doom exists because the solution does not.
Contrariwise The skeptical camp distrusts the solution and so just believes in global warming of doom. But be careful here. If global warming of doom is true, then it is irrelevant that its followers come to believe it because they desire the solution. Just as it is irrelevant that if a patient believes in the efficacy of his medication because he desires health.
On the other hand, if global warming of doom is false, then it is also irrelevant that its detractors come to disbelieve because they hate the solution.
And there is no symmetry here because who is right and who am wrong depends on whether global warming of doom is true, and it is almost certainly false.
The desperate need, the desperate desire to believe in the solution is why true believers consider questions about the science of global warming, of doom, personal attacks. They lash out when they hear them. Skeptics are greedy or have an animus against the poor believers shriek denier. The science is settled. They lapse into scientific incoherence and make impossible claims like we're destroying the planet. Or that this is my favorite, that we can stop climate change.
True believers say skeptical Scientists cannot be trusted because these scientists have been have been funded by sources who do not share the true belief. They never see the irony in this. They call for the firing of skeptical scientists or seek to ban their employment. Some true believers have descended into madness and demanded skeptical scientists be prosecuted or imprisoned for crimes against humanity.
And the reason for this childishness is simple. True believers are devoted to the solution to the environment. It is part of their environmental identity. It is who they are. If they cannot be who they are, then they are nothing.
If the science is settled to their satisfaction, unsettling it by conducting new research must be prevented because that new research might prove what cannot be tolerated. And there is no escaping this predicament.
This echoes what Bob said a bit without convincing true believers that environmentalism and the solution are false. And that can't be done with science. It requires a change in their deepest personal faiths, and that's a very tough task.
Now, politicians are like civilians in the sense that most of them don't possess in-depth scientific knowledge. And this is fine. Their skills lay elsewhere, like in relying upon the judgment of people who do have this knowledge. But there is a lesser breed of politician who is happy to profit from the ignorance of the citizens he represents. This politician believes in the solution. Rather, he believes in the civilians belief in the solution. This politician sees himself as the solution. Somebody has to be in charge and it ought to be him.
A member of the House of Representatives wrote letters to employers of several scientists. This member assumed or skeptics and demanded these employers hand over information regarding the scientists, emails, funding sources and so forth. The list was in some error, amusingly, but facts are irrelevant. Political action was what counted.
The member at least, at least had the intelligence to understand that if skeptical scientists successfully refuted global warming of doom, there would be no need for the solution and thus even less need for himself. And that a group of senators wrote letters to scores of companies who might have directly or indirectly funded skeptical scientists.
The senators were displeased about, quote, scientific studies designed to confuse the public and avoid taking action to cut carbon pollution. Confuse the public, prevent the solution. This is lysenkoism, the denouncement of anti-revolutionary research. Lysenko You have to remember, Lysenko not only had scientists fired for politically incorrect research, that was Lenin's term, but he had several of them executed and banished to labor camps.
But how do we prevent future political attacks? There's only one way that I see, and that's to remove the source of power of these scurrilous politicians. And what's that? True believers. So we're right back to the hard problem of changing culture itself. Can we convince civilians that big government is not the solution but the problem? And that man, it is not an environmental evil, but a necessary facet of nature. I'm not too sanguine. I think the task is very daunting. Thank you very much.
About the Author: William Briggs
One Comment
Leave A Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Excellent. I’ve tried to have these exact conversations with people I know who were completely overtaken by the propaganda of climate change, covid, etc. I learned a new term, “Lysenkoism” which is EXACTLY what we are seeing today.