What do you think?
Rate this book
Skeptical Environmentalism: The Limits of Philosophy and Science
In Skeptical Environmentalism , Robert Kirkman raises doubts about the speculative tendencies elaborated in environmental ethics, deep ecology, social ecology, postmodern ecology, ecofeminism, and environmental pragmatism. Drawing on skeptical principles introduced by David Hume, Kirkman takes issue with key tenets of speculative environmentalism, namely that the natural world is fundamentally relational, that humans have a moral obligation to protect the order of nature, and that understanding the relationship between nature and humankind holds the key to solving the environmental crisis. Engaging the work of Kant, Hegel, Descartes, Rousseau, and Heidegger, among others, Kirkman reveals the relational worldview as an unreliable basis for knowledge and truth claims, and, more dangerously, as harmful to the intellectual sources from which it takes inspiration. Exploring such themes as the way knowledge about nature is formulated, what characterizes an ecological worldview, how environmental worldviews become established, and how we find our place in nature, Skeptical Environmentalism advocates a shift away from the philosopher's privileged position as truth seeker toward a more practical thinking that balances conflicts between values and worldviews.
224 pages, Paperback
First published February 1, 2002
2 people are currently reading
38 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 of 1 review
April 12, 2017
Basic takeaway:
Environmental philosophers should recognize the limits of human knowledge and concede that no one will be able to use philosophy or science to lay to rest fundamental questions about the nature of nature or the human condition. Instead of seeking to develop THE definitive rationale for why humans do or do not have moral obligations to the environment, they should seek to put their theories into practice by engaging with real environmental issues, revising their theories as necessary, and mediating public discussion around environmental topics in a way that is welcoming to a plurality of voices and opinions.
Although Kirkman makes some good points, I disagree with some of his conclusions about the limitations of ecology. He clings to the argument that ecology is dismissive of biological detail and mechanistic analysis of organisms, claiming instead that the emphasis on inter-organism relationships comes at the expense of detail. He argues that, due to the limits of scientific inquiry,
“environmental philosophers cannot assert with confidence that the natural world is fundamentally relational. More than this, it seems as though the fundamental nature of nature may remain hidden from human understanding regardless of the method used.” (83-84) This to me is a major stretch.
Kirkman's basic argument can be distilled down to this quote: "The case I have been building is that many environmental philosopher work backward from a desired social and political outcome to the first principles that can support that outcome. The evidence for this includes the tendency of environmental thinkers to carry out what I have called selective philosophy and selective (or even preemptive) science. It is in the domain of ethics… that the backwardness of speculative environmentalism shows itself most clearly.” (142)
He ends by basically contradicting the argument he has made in the first four chapters of the book about the limits of environmental philosophy and its backwards approach, saying that "The key is for environmental philosophers to adopt a more practical stance and to rethink the relationship between theory and practice.... the task of the philosopher is to discover and defend the theory that will foster whatever are considered to be the appropriate practices and policies. When there is a dispute over policy, philosophers try to provide arguments that can be used by the practitioners of environmentalism to convince or persuade dissenters. When the arguments are ineffective, if important parties to the dispute remain unmoved, then the philosophers must return to the theoretical drawing board in order to formulate more adequate arguments.” (179)
Interesting read overall, just didn't end on a very strong note...
Environmental philosophers should recognize the limits of human knowledge and concede that no one will be able to use philosophy or science to lay to rest fundamental questions about the nature of nature or the human condition. Instead of seeking to develop THE definitive rationale for why humans do or do not have moral obligations to the environment, they should seek to put their theories into practice by engaging with real environmental issues, revising their theories as necessary, and mediating public discussion around environmental topics in a way that is welcoming to a plurality of voices and opinions.
Although Kirkman makes some good points, I disagree with some of his conclusions about the limitations of ecology. He clings to the argument that ecology is dismissive of biological detail and mechanistic analysis of organisms, claiming instead that the emphasis on inter-organism relationships comes at the expense of detail. He argues that, due to the limits of scientific inquiry,
“environmental philosophers cannot assert with confidence that the natural world is fundamentally relational. More than this, it seems as though the fundamental nature of nature may remain hidden from human understanding regardless of the method used.” (83-84) This to me is a major stretch.
Kirkman's basic argument can be distilled down to this quote: "The case I have been building is that many environmental philosopher work backward from a desired social and political outcome to the first principles that can support that outcome. The evidence for this includes the tendency of environmental thinkers to carry out what I have called selective philosophy and selective (or even preemptive) science. It is in the domain of ethics… that the backwardness of speculative environmentalism shows itself most clearly.” (142)
He ends by basically contradicting the argument he has made in the first four chapters of the book about the limits of environmental philosophy and its backwards approach, saying that "The key is for environmental philosophers to adopt a more practical stance and to rethink the relationship between theory and practice.... the task of the philosopher is to discover and defend the theory that will foster whatever are considered to be the appropriate practices and policies. When there is a dispute over policy, philosophers try to provide arguments that can be used by the practitioners of environmentalism to convince or persuade dissenters. When the arguments are ineffective, if important parties to the dispute remain unmoved, then the philosophers must return to the theoretical drawing board in order to formulate more adequate arguments.” (179)
Interesting read overall, just didn't end on a very strong note...
Displaying 1 of 1 review