Philosophy and Climate Science

by Eric Winsberg

There continues to be a vigorous public debate in our society about the status of climate science. Much of the skepticism voiced in this debate suffers from a lack of understanding of how the science works - in particular the complex interdisciplinary scientific modeling activities such as those which are at the heart of climate science. In this book Eric Winsberg shows clearly and accessibly how philosophy of science can contribute to our understanding of climate science, and how it can also shape climate policy debates and provide a starting point for research. Covering a wide range of topics including the nature of scientific data, modeling, and simulation, his book provides a detailed guide for those willing to look beyond ideological proclamations, and enriches our understanding of how climate science relates to important concepts such as chaos, unpredictability, and the extent of what we know.

Genres: Philosophy, Science, Nonfiction

282 pages, Paperback

Published April 27, 2018

Reviews

[s · Rating 3 out of 5]

It was fun to think about how climate models work on the big picture level for a bit but the second half is mostly basic Angloamerican ideas about Bayesian epistemology, scientific models in general, and some kind of vaguely Habermasian social theory in dense dry prose. Not really what I wanted given the title or the actual urgency of the situation.

[John Lepp · Rating 4 out of 5]

Congratulations to Eric Winsberg for starting a very relevant Philosophical conversation. With the fate of our Planet in the balance, it is very difficult to remain neutral about the sundry of topics discussed in this tome. Winsberg not only introduces the reader to the variety of considerations concerning climate science, he also provides his Philosophical positions. Of course, just like what would happen with any good conversation, the book demands a response.

One argument begging for a response is his ( and Wendy Parker's) idea of sacrificing "truth" for "adequacy of purpose." He sets up a false dilemma - "either we already trust one model, or we don't. If we do, then the variety of models is irrelevant. And if we don't, the RA [Robustness Analysis] is not going to help us establish the truth of H [an hypothesis concerning anthropogenic climate change.]"(p180). Winsberg's take on confirmation seems to be missing the point on what is learned from the agreement of models.

We can see what's wrong with Winsberg's "dilemma" by simply thinking about what occurs when you read a news story from a source you trust (say the New York Times or Fox News.) If you read a story, but no other news outlet reports it and video evidence contradicts it, you would have reason to be suspicious. If just the Times (or Fox) reported it, you'd probably accept it. If the Times reported it and you also witnessed the event and felt the consequences of its occurrence, you would accept it as the truth. The agreement lends credibility to what is accepted as the truth. You trust it even more.

But hey - that is but one point in this work to discuss. "Philosophy and Climate Science" deserves serious study.

[Jamie · Rating 3 out of 5]

Read this for a class. I was lost for a lot of the math parts but I’m not trained in any of this so it’s understandable. I was able to kind of pick up on most of it and I thought the examples he made up were very useful. Overall I want to re read it when I can understand it a big better. Even though I was kinda lost I still got an A on my test 🥳🥳

[Alex O · Rating 4 out of 5]

Loved this book. People interested in climate science should read it. Glad I took my time with it—quite dense