Why Might Science Be an Unreliable Friend

Gina McCarthy — who works for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) — builds an argument on the importance of science at the EPA in an article entitled "Why Science Matters".

According to our book Environmental Science for a Changing World, written by W.H. Freeman the environmental problems can be tremendously complex, and they are inclined to have numerous causes and each of them are challenging to approach. Therefore, when one party tries to give a response to an environmental problem, this will generate a different reaction to the other party, and our book called this as a “wicked problems”. Consequently, a wicked problem is a problem that is impossible to solve because of opposing ideas, and points of view of a determinate problem that are often hard to recognize. Moreover, our book stated that the biologist Jared Diamond identifies five factors that determine whether a society will succeed or fail these factors

Besides hard-hitting statistics and real-world examples, Carson’s book includes the overarching theme of the relationship between mankind and nature. In a world so connected, she argues, our ability to change the environment around us must be treated with extreme caution. I hold the belief that nations should embrace science and the scientific method wholeheartedly as a way to improve the means by which we live and treat the environment. In my own book, I reference the fact that “science alerts us to the perils introduced by our world-altering

It cannot be denied that, in at least some areas, the invention and progression of technology has benefitted the human race. With the growing industrialization of the world in the last centuries the lives of many people have been made easier. But, this growth of technology is not without its consequences and people are not without their concerns. While industrialization has had its benefits, the environmental cost of this progress is immense, and the impact it has on nature can be hard to swallow. It may seem like talk of the environment is something to be left to scientists or activists specializing in that particular field, but they are

The systematic, scientific study of our environment as well as our role in it (McGraw-Hill, 2003).

As a conclusion, climate change is getting more dangerous for SINCE? decades and its consequence for the planet and its habitants are awful: disappearance of many species, melting ice, coral bleaching, warming oceans, extreme heat and much more to come. Every citizen of the blue planet is capable, on his or her scale, of reversing this change by increasing investments in climate science and in research, by embracing green infrastructures and by supporting climate actions that are made all

In these statements, scientists also acknowledge the existence of uncertainty in their assertions and theories. That is, they do not dismiss the “off” chance (or conflicting data) that the statements made may be incorrect. The statements are simply what the scientific community widely holds as “true” given the amount of data and research we, as humans, currently have. Thus, these conclusions act as resolutions to scientific controversies and are often structured in a way that embodies the large amount of overwhelming data and consensus within the scientific community.

It is expected that science should give objective and reasonable explanations for any phenomena. However, every treatise is the result of thorough work of a scholar and obviously contains someone’s personal opinion, in other words, bias. Bias in general is described as the influence of one’s beliefs and attitudes on his actions and decisions (Greenwald & Krieger, 2006; Staats, 2016). The question is for what purpose is it done and how does it influence people’s perceptions?

Bias plays a part in scientific research because different scientists have differing opinions about the same data. For example, scientists can disagree on the collecting of the data, the interpretation of the data, and the significance of the data.

Environmentalism has a remarkable impact on society and plays a vital role in the development of cultural and intellectual development of an individual or group. In Noel Sturgeon’s essay, “The Politics of the Natural in U.S. History and Popular Culture” the author talks about social inequality and its effects on nature. In Mansfield’s essay, “Environmental Politics and Conflicting Socioecological futures” she talks about socioecological environmental politics and in Riley Elizabeth’s essay “Gender Differences in Sustained Attentional Control Relate to Gender Inequality across Countries” she emphasizes on the importance of gender differentiation in sustained attentional control environments. How people perceive and behave towards the environment is closely linked to societal environmental

Science is critical to the environment. There are many speculations about conclusions of environmental studies. While the environment is constantly changing, scientists are constantly learning more about it. One of the biggest controversies of nature is climate change. No matter a person’s stand on climate change, they almost always rely on some type of scientific study.

Environmental issues have been a cause of a lot of debate in the recent past. Governments and nongovernmental organizations have been in constant consultations on how to help protect the environment. Apparently, as a result of man’s many actions, the natural environment is getting torn apart so quickly that the coming generations will not enjoy this kind of environment, unless a

Pollution is a growing concern for some people, but for others it is of no importance. The way humans treat the environment is such a controversial topic that people began to examine the topic from a moral standpoint, so much so that three approaches were developed. The Anthropocentric Approach, the Sentientist Approach, and the Biocentric Approach are the main theories people get examine when debating about environmental ethics. People who have an anthropocentric view believe that nature is there to satisfy human interests, harming the environment is only bad if it also harms humans. For example, cutting down a tree to build a house would be a positive thing because it is valuable to humans. However, if cutting down the tree did not bring about a positive outcome the action would be negative. William Baxter is one of the most vocal ethicist that strongly believe in the anthropocentric approach.

As nature deteriorates on several fronts, ranging from ozone depletion to water contamination, scientists and politicians grow more desperate to stall and ultimately reverse the damage to the environment. Technology quickly comes to mind as the most viable solution, having been responsible for great strides in fields such as computer science and medicine. Humanity is fascinated by the question, “if technology can cure disease, why not use it to regulate the environment?” Questions like this gave way to “techno-optimism,” the belief that technology can solve all the problems of today and tomorrow. However, techno-optimism is a flawed philosophy that mistakes technology for an environmental cure-all. While the pursuit of ecological sustainability requires the use technology, techno-optimism grossly exaggerates the power of this relationship. It is imperative that techno-optimism be dispelled and replaced with a new, more realistic ideology. Far superior is the notion of techno-realism, which seeks to find the most efficient, most realistic solutions possible while considering all limiting factors of a particular context. However, at this time, it is more important to promote techno-realism as a philosophy than to describe specific techno-realistic solutions to environmental and social concerns. Embracing techno-realism is the first step in understanding that technology, while necessary to protect the environment, is not a panacea in its own right.

‘The Ultimate protection against research error and bias is supposed to come from the way scientists constantly test and retest each others results’ – To What extent would you agree with this claim in the natural and human sciences.