Tsinghua Philosophy of Science and Technology Salon: What Are Environmental Problems? (December 7)

Tsinghua Philosophy of Technology Salon: What Is an Environmental Problem? (December 7)

Seventieth Session of the Tsinghua University Salon on Philosophy of Science and Philosophy of Technology

Topic: What Is an Environmental Problem?

Speaker: Professor Liu Chuang (Department of Philosophy, University of Florida, USA)

Commentator: Dr. Jiang Jinsong (Associate Professor, Institute for Science, Technology and Society, Tsinghua University)

Time: Friday, December 7, 2007, 3:00–5:30 p.m.

Venue: Xinzhai 335, Tsinghua University

There were many people at this salon this time, and the discussion was quite lively. Still, it always felt as though the discussion was extremely chaotic: everyone had his or her own train of thought, and when asking questions there was not much of a clear target; or rather, many times people were not really asking questions at all, but rather, you say your piece and I say mine, and the discussion still did not revolve around a unified thread. This included both of the two main speakers, Teacher Liu and Teacher Jiang, who each had a line of thought of his own. Although Teacher Liu’s analysis was in itself very clear, it still did not seem to be aimed at criticizing Teacher Jiang’s line of thought.

I think one reason is that this topic is simply too broad, with too many loose ends, so everyone’s attention was hard to focus. Of course, this should also have something to do with the instability of Teacher Jiang’s position. Today Teacher Jiang even announced a very major “retreat,” namely, that he would no longer insist that environmental problems are caused by experimental science, but would instead say that experimental science cannot solve environmental problems. But if that is the case, then this is hardly merely a “retreat” — it is almost a total “abandonment.” And in fact, this new argument does not fit the whole original line of thought at all:

For example, if one sticks to the original claim — that environmental problems are caused by experimental science — then, going forward, if we wish to respond to environmental problems in a targeted way, we will necessarily have to start with experimental science. Then there are two possible ways of “starting”: perhaps by finding ways to eliminate it, or perhaps by guiding it toward better development. In other words, even if one maintains that environmental problems are caused by experimental science, that does not mean that experimental science cannot solve environmental problems; if we follow the logic of “the one who tied the bell must untie it,” then “experimental science causes environmental problems” and “environmental problems need to be addressed through experimental science” would instead be mutually consistent claims.

On the other hand, if we assume that experimental science has nothing whatsoever to do with environmental problems, and that some other culprit is responsible for them, then we can indeed further point out: experimental science is very likely of no help in dealing with environmental problems — because it has nothing to do with them! In other words, the new formulation adopted by Teacher Jiang is not merely a “yielding” to the original formulation; rather, it is more appropriately understood as a “negation” of it. At the very least, it certainly shifts the issue elsewhere.

In short, I think Teacher Jiang’s retreat is problematic; it feels somewhat like a panicked flight, retreating onto another fork in the road. But if Teacher Jiang does not make a concession, then there really is also a bit of a problem. My own questions, on the one hand, can refer to the comments after that Science-Science Forum ( http://hps.phil.pku.edu.cn/bbs/read.php?tid=216 ); on the other hand, I will also add a few words here:

Teacher Jiang’s definition of “environmental problem” is rather ambiguous. I remember there was once a formulation like “environmental problems caused by modern science,” and here there seems to be a bit of circular reasoning: if the so-called environmental problems are precisely those problems caused by modern science, and if so-called modern science mainly refers to experimental science, then experimental science of course is what caused “environmental problems,” and thus “experimental science is the source of environmental problems” does not require any proof at all; it can be directly derived from the definition.

Of course, Teacher Jiang supplemented this definition, for example by saying that environmental problems in the past were local, whereas in modern times particularly global environmental problems have emerged (something like saying that environmental problems in the past were local, while the environmental problems brought by modern science are universal, hehe); or, for example, that a feature of the environmental problems brought by experimental science is that it has produced large quantities of things that did not originally exist in nature. But are global environmental problems mainly caused by experimental science? The most important global environmental problems include climate warming, species extinction, forest degradation, population explosion, and so on; but these problems should be said to stem mainly from industrialization, urbanization, and the globalization of capitalism, among other things. This even includes the problem of DDT: if DDT were merely produced as a product in a laboratory, that would not in itself cause a global environmental problem. What made DDT pollution global depended on the globalization of capitalism, so that DDT, as a commodity, could be marketed and spread throughout the world. So the question is: are industrialization, urbanization, and economic globalization also caused by experimental science? In fact, according to the line of thought of SSK or the philosophy of scientific practice, the very opposite is true: the globalization of science is precisely attributed to social, cultural, and economic factors. The same is true from the perspective of the history of science and technology. One major claim put forward in McLellan III’s Science and Technology in World History is that the First Industrial Revolution was not driven by science. As for the rise of capitalism, that occurred even earlier than the rise of experimental science. I think a better perspective is to regard modern science, the Industrial Revolution, capitalism, and economic globalization, and so on, as parallel relations of a common origin, all the result of the “will to power”; experimental science is only one aspect among them. This one aspect is far from sufficient to serve as the chief culprit behind the entire modern environmental problem.

Finally, regarding local knowledge, after that Science-Science Forum with Teacher Wu Tong, I also wrote some thoughts: http://hps.phil.pku.edu.cn/bbs/read.php?tid=110 . What I want to emphasize and reiterate is this: if there is no absolute universality, then likewise there is no absolute locality. Private language is impossible; any “knowledge” must necessarily possess a certain publicness, and this “relative universality” can sometimes be compared.

For example, we can imagine two neighboring tribes, each with its own language, culture, and customs. The two tribes have long coexisted peacefully: they are able to communicate with one another (languages can be translated), while still maintaining their respective distinctiveness. Then we can imagine that there is some “knowledge” that is confined to one tribe and does not work when taken to the other; they would find it very hard to translate such knowledge over, and even if it were translated, it still could not be understood; even if it could barely be understood, it still would not be able to display its efficacy. Then this kind of knowledge is of course “local knowledge.” Each of the two tribes would have its own local knowledge that the other cannot recognize; yet after all, they are able to reach consensus on certain other matters, and there is other knowledge that is “more” easily translated between the two sides, so that both sides can acknowledge it as their shared knowledge. Well then, here it is very clear that some knowledge is “more universal” than other knowledge. So should we “strive” to obtain more universal knowledge? Is modern science precisely the result of humanity’s pursuit of consensus?

Since there is no absolute universality and no absolute locality, everything is only relative. Then we can say that all knowledge is local, but we can equally say that all knowledge is universal. In that case, it is nothing special to say that scientific knowledge is also local knowledge. Scientists would presumably also be happy to acknowledge that scientific knowledge is not “absolutely” universal knowledge; scientific knowledge develops, science continually progresses, so the scientific knowledge of any given era certainly has its limitations. Perhaps if one were to look at it from the standpoint of a highly advanced alien civilization or some distant future, it would turn out to be wrong. But they would still insist that science is currently the most universal knowledge system on Earth.

Latest Comments 

：（

2007-12-08 13:50:44 Anonymous 221.222.242.208 [Reply]

Teacher Jiang’s mind really is getting a bit muddled. Environmental problems are indeed caused by experimental science, but experimental science may well be able to solve environmental problems. Sigh……

Translated from the Chinese original with AI assistance. The original text is authoritative.