Methodological and Ideological OptionsRhetoric, epistemology and climate change economics
Introduction
Almost a century ago, the eminent Chicago economist Frank Knight (1925, p.373-4) observed:
Human beings act, not on the basis of fact and reality as such, but on the basis of opinions and beliefs about facts, and what is called knowledge, but which at best falls notoriously short of the implications of that term. From a logical point of view therefore, one who aspires to explain or understand human behavior must be, not finally but first of all, an epistemologist.
Though Knight was concerned with economic ‘knowledge’, a few decades later the influential experimental psychologist Edwin Boring (1954, p.639) observed such a claim applies, more generally, to scientific ‘knowledge’ because: “science is a human activity and that you have, therefore, to take into account the properties of human beings when you are assessing facts and theories.” Though such epistemic observations have ancient roots, in recognizing the impact of the “personal equation” on scientific ‘facts’ and theories, Knight and Boring provide insight into the influence that language has on the production and interpretation of ‘scientific’ knowledge about climate change and global warming. More precisely, the ability to influence human behavior using ‘the art of persuasion’ --- rhetoric – raises essential questions concerning the validity of economic knowledge claims made by climate change activists. Though modern references to rhetoric are typically pejorative, such references usually fail to recognize the epistemic foundations required to distinguish what is ‘rhetorical language’ from legitimate scientific knowledge claims.
This paper explores the epistemological basis for economic prognostications arising from, arguably, the most important scientific problem confronting modern society: the facts, beliefs and theories associated with the measurement, causes, impact and mitigation of climate change. This involves identifying the role that rhetoric plays in activist claims associated with the economics of global warming and climate change. In deference to the ancient origins, the following narrative commences with a rudimentary discussion of ancient views on rhetoric. The connection of rhetoric with epistemology and language is identified and subsequent evolution up to the influential contribution of McCloskey, 1983, McCloskey, 1985 is summarized and epistemic criteria specified for determining when language is rhetorical. In contrast to McCloskey and others where all economic discourse is perceived as rhetorical, this paper distinguishes rhetorical from legitimate non-rhetorical language forms employed in the economic discourse that climate change activists use to exert significant influence over mitigation initiatives. Building on an observation by Fish (1998) that “another word for anti-foundationalism is rhetoric”, criteria for distinguishing anti-foundational rhetoric from non-rhetorical scientific language are informed by the naturalized epistemology proposed by Quine and others asserting that ‘propositions that are not confirmable by experiment or by direct empirical observation are not scientific’.
Exploiting this philosophical background, mitigation proposals derived from models of climate change economics are critiqued. Such strategies fall into two general groups: GHG emissions reduction; and, atmospheric GHG removal. Support for specific mitigation strategies reveals a central feature of climate change activism: the belief that Science can save the world from environmental catastrophe. This leads to emphasis on ‘soft strategies’: switching from fossil fuel to green(er) energy sources, especially in electricity generation and transportation; expanded use of nationally-based carbon pricing and cap-and-trade schemes; and, development and introduction of carbon capture and removal technologies. Clarification of the role that rhetoric plays in support of such strategies reveals systemic epistemic difficulties in key mitigation proposals. In the context of climate change, there is a complex layering of beliefs associated with: ex post scientific knowledge of climate change; ex ante theories about causes and effects of such change; and, rhetorical claims about the effectiveness of mitigation proposals. While evidence from scientific measurements of climate change justifies knowledge claims that such change is happening, other layers of belief concerned with the feasibility of ‘soft’ policies to combat climate change raise legitimate questions about the possibility of belief outstripping the evidence that such policies will be effective.2
Section snippets
Classical rhetoric
Despite attempts by Shi (2004), Shaw and Nerlich (2015) and Goul (2020) to keep the flame alive by continuing a critique of mainstream methodology employed in economic ecology, the ‘rhetorical turn’ promised by McCloskey (1983, 1985) and explored in ecological economics by Luks (1998) has seemingly faded into relative obscurity.3 This failure of the
Epistemology and language
Despite being from an era that is centuries in the past, the perceived a priori truths of medieval Christian faith provide helpful insight into the interpretation and identification of rhetoric in modern academic discourse. Medieval scholasticism represents an extreme historical instance of foundational epistemology. Since being advocated by Aristotle, foundationalism has evolved different variants involving demarcation between basic belief and non-basic belief. Basic beliefs are ‘characterized
Evidence, knowledge and belief
Concepts of evidence, knowledge and belief are central to traditional epistemology. At least since William James and Durant Drake, philosophers have debated whether and under what conditions ‘belief can outstrip evidence’ (Sharadin, 2015; Talbot, 2014). In contrast to the anti-foundational relativist approach to rhetoric advanced by McCloskey and Luks where “what really counts in scientific discourse is good argument: rhetoric” (Luks, 1998, p.141), a belief statement in naturalized epistemology
Ecological economics and climate change activism
What are the social and institutional conditions that sustain rational belief in mitigation strategies derived from climate change economics? When targeted to climate change there is a vast ‘scientific’ literature replete with ‘scientific evidence’ that provides an evidentiary foundation for climate change activism.8
Climate change: evidence, causes, effects and mitigation
For all but a chosen few with the resources to engage in climate science, evidence about climate change originates from the testimony of external sources. Sources of basic belief available to the individual alone – perception, memory, consciousness and reason – are incapable of generating much knowledge of climate change. As with the sources of basic belief available to an individual, external sources of evidence can be subject to error. However, in the realm of climate change, the ethos of
Mitigation, adaption and IPCC AR59
The recent Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) (IPCC, 2013; IPCC, 2014) prepared by the United Nations body responsible for assessing the science related to climate change provides a complicated deductive chain starting from ex post scientific knowledge about temperature change, to theories about causes, to ex ante estimates of climate change effects nested with proposals for mitigating and adapting to such effects. At what point in this chain, if any, does scientific knowledge transition to
Economics of climate change mitigation
Knowledge about climate change due to global temperature warming, caused by increased levels of anthropogenic GHG emissions in the atmosphere, originates from the collective of climate scientists. This scientific knowledge is a powerful motivator for climate change activism. In contrast, the economics associated with ex ante estimates of effects and mitigation of climate change lacks the scientific foundation necessary to rise above the status of rhetoric. The epistemological transition from
Conclusion
What can epistemology contribute to understanding human behavior toward climate change? Where does rational belief of individuals based on ‘science’ end and the “folk psychology” of social group activism take hold? Knowledge about climate change based on ex post scientific measurements and observations is deeply disturbing. Such knowledge can lead to dark and depressing ‘nihilism, despair, and disenchantment’. Being beyond the capacity of the individual to provide a solution, the frightening
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
References (54)
- et al.
Deforestation and the Paris climate agreement: an assessment of REDD + in the national climate action plans
Forest Policy Econ.
(2018) The rhetorics of ecological economics
Ecol. Econ.
(1998)- et al.
Metaphor as a mechanism of global climate change governance: a study of international policies, 1992–2012
Ecol. Econ.
(2015) Ecological economics as a policy science: rhetoric or commitment towards an improved decision-making process on sustainability
Ecol. Econ.
(2004)Carnap and Quine on empiricism
Hist. Philos. Q.
(1997)“Deforestation and Climate Change”, (April)
(2017)The epistemology of science—a bird's-eye view
Synthese
(2010)Development: slow down population growth
Nature
(2016)Psychological factors in the scientific process
Am. Sci.
(1954)Rhetoric and rationality: a review essay of McCloskey’s the rhetoric of economics
East. Econ. J.
(1987)
Chinese wind turbine maker is now the world’s largest
Sci. Am.
Stanley Fish is not a sophist: the difference between skeptical and Prudential versions of rhetorical pragmatism
Rhetor. Soc. Q.
The people paradox self-esteem striving, immortality ideologies, and human response to climate change
Ecol. Soc.
“Rhetoric in an anti-foundational world”, ch.1
Evidence and reasons for belief
Analysis
Mentality as a social emergent: can the “zeitgeist” have explanatory power?
Hist. Theory
The Order of Things: An Archaeology of the Human Sciences, New York: Routledge Classics (Trans, Les Mots et Les Choses, 1966)
A general theory of scientific/intellectual movements
Am. Sociol. Rev.
The methodology of positive economics
Wahrheit und Methode: Grundzüge einer philosophischen Hermeneutik (Truth and method, Joel Weinsheimer & Donald Marshall, trans., 2nd rev. ed. New York: Crossroads)
An observationally based constraint on the water-vapor feedback
J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos.
“Is ecology absurd? Diogenes and the end of civilization”, chap. 5
Rare earth elements: The global supply chain
Climate change 2013: The physical science basis
Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
Economic psychology and the value problem
Q. J. Econ.
The Structure of Scientific Revolutions
Cited by (4)
Scientific method
2023, Dictionary of Ecological Economics: Terms for the New MillenniumReview: Climate change resilience disconnect in rural communities in coastal Kenya. A rhetoric communication discord proliferated by COVID-19 pandemic
2022, Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems
- 1
The author is Professor of Finance at Simon Fraser University in the Beedie School of Business and member of the Graduate Liberal Studies Program at Simon Fraser University, Vancouver, Canada.