Social Epistemology 23 (2):145 – 163 (2009)
|Abstract||Speakers of the “green backlash” movement frequently advertise their approach as one of rigorous scepticism, and themselves as defenders of scientific method. In reality, their use of scepticism is often highly flawed and inconsistent; this is clearly seen in case examples focusing on Philip Stott's arguments on climate change, and Julian Simon's arguments on physical limits to growth. What this discourse illustrates is that sceptical language is often used as a rhetorical tool for advancing an underlying political philosophy that is based on an ideal of modern science as bestower of unlimited material power. In order to understand, and to criticise this discourse effectively, one needs to recall the criticisms made by the likes of Hayek and Arendt of “scientism”—the misuse of the language of science, and its aura of predictive certainty, to portray certain political visions as being inevitably true and triumphant|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Brian Doherty & Marius de Geus (eds.) (1996). Democracy and Green Political Thought: Sustainability, Rights, and Citizenship. Routledge.
Mikael Stenmark (1997). What is Scientism? Religious Studies 33 (1):15-32.
Jeff Malpas (1994). Self-Knowledge and Scepticism. Erkenntnis 40 (2):165-184.
John J. Callanan (2011). Making Sense of Doubt: Strawson's Anti-Scepticism. Theoria 77 (3):261-278.
Harald Thorsrud (2009). Ancient Scepticism. University of California Press.
Arne Naess (1966). Psychological and Social Aspects of Pyrrhonian Scepticism. Inquiry 9 (1-4):301 – 321.
Ronald J. Burke & Susan Black (1997). Save the Males: Backlash in Organizations. Journal of Business Ethics 16 (9):933-942.
Added to index2010-05-07
Total downloads8 ( #131,711 of 722,867 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #60,917 of 722,867 )
How can I increase my downloads?