Should Liberal Communities Respect Bad Believers? On Empirical Disagreement over Climate Change and Public Reason
Research output: Contribution to journal › Journal article › Research › peer-review
Standard
Should Liberal Communities Respect Bad Believers? On Empirical Disagreement over Climate Change and Public Reason. / Nielsen, Morten Ebbe Juul.
In: Danish Yearbook of Philosophy, 2024.Research output: Contribution to journal › Journal article › Research › peer-review
Harvard
APA
Vancouver
Author
Bibtex
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
T1 - Should Liberal Communities Respect Bad Believers?
T2 - On Empirical Disagreement over Climate Change and Public Reason
AU - Nielsen, Morten Ebbe Juul
PY - 2024
Y1 - 2024
N2 - Public reason liberalism strives to accommodate as broad an array of viewpoints as possible. Some people are selective science skeptics, meaning that they disagree with parts of mainstream science. Of special interest for this paper are climate deniers, who disagree with the mainstream consensus views of climate science. This creates a problem for public reason: on the one hand, public reason wants to avoid basing rules and policies on controversial principles, values, and so on. On the other hand, there are citizens whom we cannot outright call irrational who are skeptical about central tenets of climate science. This seems to imply that public reason cannot base policies on the robust findings of climate science because these findings are controversial among thecitizenry. But we have strong reasons to base our policies vis-à-vis climate change on the robust findings of climate science. How should we proceed?
AB - Public reason liberalism strives to accommodate as broad an array of viewpoints as possible. Some people are selective science skeptics, meaning that they disagree with parts of mainstream science. Of special interest for this paper are climate deniers, who disagree with the mainstream consensus views of climate science. This creates a problem for public reason: on the one hand, public reason wants to avoid basing rules and policies on controversial principles, values, and so on. On the other hand, there are citizens whom we cannot outright call irrational who are skeptical about central tenets of climate science. This seems to imply that public reason cannot base policies on the robust findings of climate science because these findings are controversial among thecitizenry. But we have strong reasons to base our policies vis-à-vis climate change on the robust findings of climate science. How should we proceed?
KW - Faculty of Humanities
KW - disagreement
KW - climate justice
KW - social epistemology
U2 - 10.1163/24689300-bja10050
DO - 10.1163/24689300-bja10050
M3 - Journal article
JO - Danish Yearbook of Philosophy
JF - Danish Yearbook of Philosophy
SN - 0070-2749
ER -
ID: 372189118