“STRONG” AND “WEAK” GLOBAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONCEPTS
https://doi.org/10.24057/2071-9388-2010-3-1-56-66
Abstract
Many global environmental issues being subject of ambitious international environmental politics could look very different in terms of scientific justification. This was revealed during interviews made by the author with some leading American environmental scientists. All interviewed American scientists granted minor confidence to three environmental issues—deforestation, desertification and biodiversity loss, while two issues—the ozone depletion and climate change—were deserved high degree of confidence. The striking difference in evaluation of the global concepts of environmental issues is discussed in the context of the classical epistemological problem of coexistence of “strong” and “weak” theories in modern science. The normative character of epistemology suggests that some ways of raising scientific credibility of the backward environmental concepts can be proposed. Better justification of these global environmental issues can help to move forward the environmental politics which have shown mere stagnation during the last years.
About the Authors
Nikolay DroninRussian Federation
Faculty of Geography, Moscow State University, Leninskie gory, 119991, Moscow
John Francis
United States
JMF Associates, Pennsylvania
References
1. Charney. J., et al., (1977), A Comparative Study of the Effects of Albedo Change on Drought
2. in Semi-Arid Regions, J. Atmos. Sci. 34, 1366–1385.
3. Christie, M., (2000), The Ozone Layer. A Philosophy of Science Perspective. Cambridge
4. University Press, Cambridge.
5. Cloudsley-Thompson, J. L., (1974), The Ecology of Oases. Watford, Merrow. Dregne, H. E.,
6. (1986), Desertification of Arid Lands. In: El-Baz, F. and M. H. A. Hassan, (eds.). Physics of
7. desertification. Dordrecht, Martinus, Nijhoff.
8. Global Environment Outlook 2000, (1999), United Nations Environment Programme,
9. Earthscan Publications.
10. Habitat Loss and Biodiversity., (2002), W210 LEC NOTES 4 REV. (available at http://www.
11. humboldt.edu/~tlg2/w210/W210Lec4.pdf )
12. Lovejoy, T., (1980), A Projection of Species Extinctions. The global 2000 report to the
13. President. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington DC, Vol. 2, 328–332.
14. N’Tchayi, M. G., et al., (1997), The Diurnal and Seasonal Cycles of Wind-Borne Dust over
15. Africa North of the Equator, Journal of Applied Meteorology 36, 868–882.
16. Popper, K., (1978), Natural Selection and the Emergence of Mind, Dialectica 32, 339–355.
17. Saunders, P. T., (2000), Use and Abuse of the Precautionary Principle, ISIS News (now
18. Science in Society), 6.
19. Weiss, C., (2006), Can There Be Science-Based Precaution? Environ. Res. Let. 1. (available at
20. http://www.iop.org/EJ/article/17489326/1/1/014003/erl6_1_014003.html)
Review
For citations:
Dronin N., Francis J. “STRONG” AND “WEAK” GLOBAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONCEPTS. GEOGRAPHY, ENVIRONMENT, SUSTAINABILITY. 2010;3(1):56-66. https://doi.org/10.24057/2071-9388-2010-3-1-56-66
Views:
756
Email this article 