Tucson Citizen.com
The Data Port - Politics, Literature, And The Little Disturbances of Man

Climate Change and Pascal’s Wager

by on Nov. 01, 2009, under Climate Change, Technology, Uncategorized
Climate Change and Pascal's Wager

Climate Change and Pascal's Wager

The 17th Century mathematician and philosopher Blaise Pascal is famous for a bet he made about the existence of God. Given the fact that reason alone cannot settle the question of God’s existence, how should we settle the question? Bet on God and live accordingly? Or bet that God does not exist ?

Suppose we act as if God exists and He does, then we win the God bet.  Now suppose we bet on God and He doesn’t exist. We are at least no worse off than if we bet on there being no God. No harm no foul.

But if God does exist and we bet against him then we risk salvation.

Pascal takes his argument one step further, suggesting that even if God doesn’t exist we should act as if he did. We would have much to gain and nothing to lose.

Note that none of this settles the question of which side is right, the “no Godders” or the “Godders.”

What’s buried in this “bet” is a normative prescription. That is, a rule for deciding how we ought to act in the face of conflicting (and for us) unresolvable differences: Consider the consequences of either side being true and decide how to act in consideration of the possible consequences.

Let’s apply this to the climate change dispute.

I take it that a very large body of scientific evidence supports the claim that the results of human activity radically affect the world’s climate to an unprecedented and dangerous degree.

But not everyone holds this view, some arguing that the scientific evidence is flawed and that the observed climatic variations are within normal limits.

I happen to believe, as apparently a majority of climatologists do, in the reality of a radical climate change, but whether I do or not is immaterial because the issue is not about which view is true but about how we should act assuming that one or the other is true.

So.. I will make my Pascal’s Wager on the side of radical climate change. If it’s really occurring then we had best be trying to do something about it. If it’s not true that we face radical climate change we will still benefit from the strategies for reducing pollution (wind power, solar power, reduced dependence on coal and foreign oil and so forth.)

If we bet against climate change and it’s really taking place we risk the consequences of increased pollution and lose the benefits we might derive from working against it.

This entry was posted on Sunday, November 1st, 2009 at 9:14 pm and is filed under Climate Change, Technology, Uncategorized. Tags for this post: , . You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

RSS feed for this post (comments)
  • tiponeill

    Pascal was of course blinded by the culture he lived in – the choice was either worship the Pope or don’t believe in anything.
    The consequences of not worshiping Vishnu or eating meat never occurred to him – which is undoubtedly why he was reincarnated as Eric Idle.
    As another guide to deciding who to believe when confronted with conflicing claims, I usually find “Folow the Money” to be an excellent guide.
    When I find that most scientists agree that smoking tobacco is bad for your health, but some scientists claim that the evidence is inconclusive my natural inclination is to believe the scientists who claim that the evidence is inconclusive.
    Luckily I am rational enough to realize that my lifelong nicotine addiction may bias my judgment.
    Then I factor in the fact that the scientists who claim that the evidence is inconclusive are all being paid big bucks by someone named Phillip Morris and I reluctantly come to the conclusion that smoking is bad for you.
    None of which cures my addiction, of course.
    Which is pretty much a description of our climate change “controversy”.
    Follow the money of reluctant politicians to political contributions from coal burning electric companies, and factor in our addiction to cheap coal and oil.
     
     

    • http://www.tucsonblogs.blogspot.com/ The Local Tucsonan

      If history tells us anything it should be telling us that global warming is happening. We have been warming uo since the last Ice Age about 20000 years ago. But is man causing any of it should be the real question, or is it weather cycles that cuases warming and cooling.

      Like you said follow the money. Who is paying the scientist that claim global warming is man made. It also seems that Al Gore is getting pretty rich off of this whole thing.  

  • ldonyo

    I do not disagree with the need for fuel and energy sources that are renewable. I completely disagree with the man-made climate change hypothesis.

  • leftfield

    Pascal’s wager sounds disturbingly like the fellow who says to you, “After all, what have you got to lose?”   This is a surefire indication that that person is someone to stay far away from. 

  • Jonathan DuHamel

    Arguments by analogy are often flawed. The flaw in your argument is that you are comparing the unmeasurable with the measurable. If God exists, he must do so outside our space-time continuum (after all he created the universe) and therefore cannot be proven or disproved by observation or measurement. Climate can be measured, so its characteristics can be defined.
    Your statement: “I take it that a very large body of scientific evidence supports the claim that the results of human activity radically affect the world’s climate to an unprecedented and dangerous degree.” is false on its face. There is no observational or measurable evidence to support it; there is only speculation from computer modeling which depends on unproven assumptions.
    Ironically, your belief in a “large body of evidence” is a religious belief, not supported by observable facts.

    • Jonathan DuHamel

      P.S.  We do have much to lose: by chasing the phantom menace we expending resources on a non-problem instead of applying them to real problems.

  • leftfield

    I think in its essence the global warming issue is beyond logical argument at this point.  It has now become part of the American Culture Wars (really just another battle in the larger war of capital vs labor) and thus it is not possible to achieve anything close to a nationwide consensus on whether global warming is real and whether it is related to human activity.  I’ll just betcha that if Rush came out tomorrow and said the sea level is rising and we better do something, we’d all switch sides. 

    Speaking of logic, Jonathan; if you believe that a “god” exists, then the burden of proof is on you.  Until you prove a “god” exists, he does not exist, except as a superstition and we should call faith in “god” just that; with no greater credibility than the famous “Spaghetti Monster”.

    • Jonathan DuHamel

      And,  Leftfield, to use your argument: until someone proves that human carbon dioxide emissions actually cause significant warming, they don’t.

  • http://www.datlas.com Dave Atlas

    Mr. DuHamel has an excellent opposing view.  We may like to take the matter of global warming in hand and attempt by all means to alter and correct it, BUT what will be the cost of making this effort?  Will we see more rapid inflation, conflict increased with developing nations who want “their turn” at the top of the heap of consuming nations, more limited growth and decreased job opportunities for our children?

    What course is the right one when one simply cannot know until it is too late to turn it all around no matter which course of action is now taken?  This is a matter for folks far more philosophically trained than I’d pretend to be.  I’d take the middle path on such an issue until the right course became crystal clear rather than jump on either one way course while there remains with both radical choices a good possibility one or even both are somewhat incorrect.

    It would be an easier sell to begin cutting back emissions without killing world economies and employment.  The trading of CO2, NO, etc permits may be one way to begin getting big business and big governments to work together on a world wide basis.  I have great faith that technology can rescue the world from a total meltdown at some distant date. 

    We all are just a tiny bit of nothing in the universe on a cosmic level.  If God is there, he (she) will rescue us, I suppose.  Maybe that’s a proof we will all accept.

    • http://tucsoncitizen.com/dataport Art Jacobson

      A thoughtful post, thanks. Good to hear from you.

«
»