Do scientific findings have relevance in Buddhism?

Discussion
21

Why should they write about it - place an emphasis on sea ice - in their summary for policy makers if the summary was meant to give guidance on policy to address environmental issues? They may not have included any advice about ice-cream as well - due to a lack of relevance? Your Dhamma friends are interested in your views regarding environmental issues.

I am assuming that you are also saying that the climate change issue is politicised by this same climate science community - and whoever else is involved in turning it into a political football?

Is there a reason why climate change and ecological destruction should not be political issues? In order to get affirmative action on an international scale there has to be negotiations and coordinated efforts between different political entities.

There are different political stances on climate change! President Donald Trump has announced the United States is withdrawing from the ‘Paris Agreement’ on climate change - as soon as they can. Does this manoeuvre have anything to do with politics? What do you think about this decision?

You complained about ad hominem attacks and then implied that one of your questioners is a troll and I can’t remember what my personal issues may be? I hope we haven’t ruffled your feathers?

I pointed out some basic facts about the already existing impact of rising sea level - in Bangladesh and low-lying Pacific islands - regardless of where the extra water is coming from! I have asked you to write about the real ‘environmental crisis’ that actually exists! So far, you have told us that it has nothing to do with sea ice - that’s nice to know. You seem to know a lot about sea ice - what about (real) environmental issues on a global scale?

Could you please share with us what you know about human-induced climate change and whether it endangers us- our welfare and well-being? Does it also pose a serious threat to the welfare of the myriad forms of life that exist within the biosphere? Could it give rise to a run-away effect that could lead to global ecological collapse? If it is a dangerous situation then what kind of policy initiatives might be effective in addressing this important issue? Try to concentrate on answering these questions directly.

https://insideclimatenews.org/news/29062017/trial-date-children’s-climate-lawsuit-trump-administration-climate-change

22

Ah, I see what you are claiming now, but wonder why in the world you think it is a significant point. The report discusses melting in the entire arctic region, on land or sea, including snow ice and permafrost. Among its conclusions:

The SWIPA analysis estimates that when all sources of sea-level rise are considered (not just those from the Arctic), the rise in global sea level by 2100 would be at least 52 cm for a greenhouse gas reduction scenario and 74 cm for a business-as-usual scenario. These estimates are almost double the minimum estimates made by the IPCC in 2013.

23

I’ve numbered the questions for brevity.

  1. I think their level of concern is appropriate. When a bridge may collapse the wise man drives around the pot holes on his way to inspect and repair the bridge.
  2. Right. Many things are relevant because of their interconnection – as the EBT’s advise us – but we don’t pay equal attention to them all.

For our purposes the question to ask of ourselves is how we have turned it into a political football.

I’m not up on the social science and thought on the politicization of science as I’d like to be but I think most people get the general outline.

The politicization of science is the manipulation of science for political gain. It occurs when government, business, or advocacy groups use legal or economic pressure to influence the findings of scientific research or the way it is disseminated, reported or interpreted. The politicization of science may also negatively affect academic and scientific freedom.

I think the real environmental crisis that actually exists today is a focus on the science (things out there) rather than ourselves and what we can do about it in a way that is productive rather than destructive. I think that many concerned citizens have done things that have gotten in the way of reaching a constructive action.

  • I believe that in the US the levels of support for action on climate change has been fairly stable over the last 20 years. About 40% of Republican’s express concern about it. More of the same persuasion strategy is unlikely to be effective and is likely to be counter-productive. I believe the situation is similar in other countries.
  • I believe that without significant and sustained public support, technological and political progress on decarbonisation and wider sustainability goals is fragile.
  • I think it is self evident that effective action comes when the people, a broad consensus of the public is behind the action. We don’t even have to agree on why. For this reason the compassionate and wise are trans-partisan.

“Transpartisan” – A Working Definition
Partisan: adopting as one’s own a single political party’s point of view on virtually all public policy issues and aggressively defending it
Bipartisan: oriented towards finding consensus or agreement between two major political parties (e.g., in the USA, the Democratic and Republican Parties) with little or no interest in other perspectives

Transpartisan: valuing inclusive solutions that transcend and include all political party positions and promote cross-spectrum collaboration for the benefit of all
http://mediatorsfoundation.org/resources/transpartisan-definition/

IMO Buddha was transpartisan in orientation. The dharma of engaged Buddhism therefor needs to be transpartisan.

I think that Buddhists who claim to speak of or for ‘the science’ but don’t take scientific integrity and valid information seriously do damage to the social environment of the sanga and society. I think they pollute the social environment.

http://www.nature.com/news/why-we-are-poles-apart-on-climate-change-1.11166
See also:

“Five years ago, local leaders down here, Republicans and Democrats, formed the bipartisan Southeast Florida Regional Climate Change Compact — an agreement to work together to fight climate change. And it’s become a model not just for the country, but for the world. ” – President Barack Obama

Climate Outreach was set up in 2004, with a mission to help people understand climate change in their own voice, and we’ve become Europe’s leading climate communication organisation.

We produce world-leading advice and practical tools for engagement by combining scientific research methods with years of hands-on experience. 


In our decade as leaders in climate change communication we’ve seen it all: the photographs of sad polar bears, the complicated graphs, the science speak, the doom and gloom omens of the apocalypse, and the wailed laments of “won’t somebody please think of the future of the planet?!”.

Our rigorous research has shown us that these messages simply aren’t effective for the majority of people. Worse than that, they can be disempowering. These stories make many people turn away, because climate change is seen as a niche concern, a complex scientific problem, an issue for the future only, and something that makes us fearful.

Climate change demands a response across society, from people of all ages, faiths, nationalities and sides of the political spectrum. That’s why our mission is to engage people with climate change from their perspective – not ours.
– https://climateoutreach.org/

  • I believe that the focus of the compassionate and wise tends towards solutions - mitigation and adaption.
  • I believe that in attempt to help other countries the compassionate and wise listen and pay attention to the priorities expressed by the leaders and individual citizens of those countries.
  • I believe that the compassionate are wise to the taints of “climate porn”.
  • I believe that the compassionate and wise focus on climate change no matter what the cause or driver rather than just CO2 driven anthropogenic climate change.
24

Archaeological findings definitely have relevance in Buddhism, since the Buddha was a real historical person:

Historical Evidence of the Buddha
https://www.budsas.org/ebud/whatbudbeliev/17.htm

1 Like
25

This thread is about the relevance of scientific findings in Buddhism. If you want to talk about the actual ‘on the ground’ effects of climate change on communities like Bangladesh or low lying Pacific Islands - or other (science related) findings regarding the effects of climate change then, that would be appreciated.

I have taken the trouble to (provide) references to ‘actual’ happenings in the real world. This is what science is concerned with - and about? If you are not particularly interested in talking about these scientific findings and there relevance to Buddhism - now and in the future - then it might be a good idea if you start another thread that focuses on your interests.

You made your case about the importance of keeping an open mind - very good! This does not mean we are incapable of listening to the ‘scientific’ - hard and soft - consensus on the issues of human-induced climate change, mass extinction, natural habitat loss, global pollution, population pressures, unsustainable economic development and various other ‘real world’ problems - and make sense of them.

A primary driver of the climate change debate is misinformation provided by right-wing media. I have the ‘Fox Corporation’ in mind - they are not alone. Vested interest groups in the fossil-fuel industry and elsewhere, as well as corrupt and paid-off politicians are mis-leading us towards midnight!

It is encouraging when people from both sides of the political divide work together to address these issues. There have been - and still are - conservative leaders and policies in Europe that address the problem of human-induced climate change. These leaders do not dispute the scientific consensus regarding human-driven climate change.

What I find disconcerting in what you are saying is the insertion of occasional snippets of information that suggests that you are not willing to accept the consensus view of the entire scientific community that we are struggling with an atmospheric issue that is human-induced.

We also need to remember that the climate is only one of many interrelated environmental issues we are endangered by - the science around these issues is also relevant to the opening question. As the environment and society exist in an interrelationship we can also see that social justice concerns play into all of this!

What you are saying is important but it has more to do with how to establish bipartisan or ‘transpartisan’ alliances that facilitates cooperation in remedying our environmental problems. This is commendable but not directly related to science.

As this is a science related thread your concerns - that have some validity - belong somewhere else. Start another thread about your concerns and interests - they are worth exploring. We don’t need to devalue or denigrate the science in order to find reasons to cooperate to make a better world.

If you feel you are qualified to refute the scientific consensus on human-induced climate change then you really need to say as much? You need to make an unambiguous statement regarding this question. You tend to be elusive and often avoid answering direct questions and I understand why - this is not your main concern.

The problem with denying the scientific consensus when it comes to important environmental issues is it can have a dumming-down effect in society. It then becomes easier for Trump-like leaders to gain ascendancy with their climate change denial. It creates a space where all manner of falsehoods and delusions can take root - which is not at all helpful when clear thinking is vitally important. :heart_eyes:

26

My last post was based upon and referenced several social scientific findings that are very relevant to Buddhists engaged in climate issues. What is your objection to these scientific findings?

So tell me what you mean by “the relevance of scientific findings in Buddhism”.
For example:

To your question: "This is what science is concerned with - and about?
QUESTION 1: Is that a “scientific finding” in your mind?

QUESTION 2: Is that statement “about the relevance of scientific findings in Buddhism.”?

  • In my view the question is in the domain of the philosophy of science. And I believe I’m in the mainstream consensus in that view.

Or this example:

Especially in light of your opening comments (see more below) which included several ways in which science might be relevant I think you rather dogmatically pick and choose what is “directly related” to science.

I have written about topics based on re-occuring themes in your opening entry.
That opening entry began:

I wrote about and illustrated the several expansive themes I read in that entry:

Are you now wanting to narrow down the focus from your originally more expanse theme?
If so, then if I’m not following your desired agenda it’s because IMO your agenda has changed in this thread.

27

Yes, I know you find it disconcerting. I think that says more about your own struggles with science that it does about me. For all of us these are issues for out time “on the cushion” and with trusted spiritual friends.

I strongly suspect there are significant gaps between what you believe and the consensus view of the entire scientific community.

I’m going to take a educated guess here but it’s likely that you don’t accept the consensus view of the entire scientific community. If you heard it you might think you were listening to a “denier”. You certainly wouldn’t be the first.

I can say with reasonable confidence that there is a strong consensus that many scientists do not accept %100 of the consensus in their field or related fields. And few scientists see anything wrong with that, quite the contrary – it’s a strength.

If you talked with a social scientist about consensus they would want to know definitions (how many have to agree to make it a consensus), methodology (polls or interviews strongly preferred), the construction of the questions asked (responses can sometimes be very sensitive to seemingly slight variations) and sampled population (what scientists do you question). That is quite a process and the answers would be expected to vary depending on a number of judgement calls that have to be made in the research.

I’d don’t know of this type of finding related to some of the questions you raised, extinctions for example. My impression is that for population biologists and the like the threat of climate changes comes in third or fourth on their prioritized list of concerns. That on it’s own climate change stress would probably not cause large scale extinction. A few have suggested that a over emphasis on climate change diverts attention away from the major stressors such as habitat loss. I think that is relevant to “thread about the relevance of scientific findings in Buddhism”.

Unfortunately, my understanding is that among biologists, zoologists, etc, when allowed to speaking privately and candidly there is a consensus that because of the politicized nature of the science as a rule they speak very guardedly on these topics and often self-censor themselves.

You may think of such statements as skepticism, denial, etc – I say it’s reality and good dharma. I believe that AND I support a carbon tax and other policies.

But since you asked 
 the following quote seems reasonable:

Question: The other uncertainty concerning the magnitude of the global warming change has to do with the feedbacks that operate. Some people have argued that maybe the climate isn’t as sensitive as all that, in which case you’d get a smaller change rather than a bigger one.

Schneider: Scientists don’t have a Hippocratic oath, but we have to tell the truth. Everybody’s truth is relative. But our truth means a wide range of possibilities that we can imagine. And I can imagine so-called feedback processes, where if you warm up the earth, you melt snow and ice, which adds further warming. If you do that, it makes the clouds taller, which makes them trap more heat, instead of wider. And if I conjure up these feedbacks, I can end up expecting that we could have climate change that’s catastrophic in the next century.

I can also conjure up another set of feedbacks: The clouds get wider; it gets drier in between the clouds. There are a number of feedbacks we can conjure up, which makes it warm up only a degree or so, at the relatively mild end of the spectrum. Well, most scientists would argue that these very mild and very catastrophic outcomes are plausible, maybe even a 10 percent chance of each of them. But the bulk of the likelihood is somewhere between the end of the world and the “good for you” scenarios that you see all the time in the newspapers and in the Congressional debates.

The bulk of scientists are pretty straight about saying this is a probability distribution.

 We do not rule out the catastrophic 5 degrees or the mild half or one degree. And the special interests, from deep ecology groups grabbing the 5 degrees as if it’s the truth, or the coal industry grabbing the half degree and saying, “Oh, we’re going to end up with negligible change and CO2’s a fertilizer,” 

what's up with the weather: the debate: stephen h. schneider

[ I removed two sentences that were out of date regarding “best guess” in that IPCC AR5 WG1 no longer states a best guess.

28

I think what you are saying is a fair criticism. Earlier on, I did do a final edit in my opening reflection that tightened up its parameters. The paragraph that caught your attention almost disappeared. I ran out of my edit-credit for the day and it survived. The following day I revisited what I had written and decided to cancel the edit. Instead of cutting back I added more that I felt was important.

To be honest I appreciate where you are coming from in your area of interest. I can understand the value of getting people from different political backgrounds to find common ground and work together. I believe both of our perspectives are important but in different ways.

My Buddhist teacher asked the question: what is more important - to be right or to care? I could be wrong but I feel that what you are saying is: we need to find reasons to actively promote Earth care that everybody can participate in? I also see that in order to facilitate this approach we need to take a stance that does not alienate people who have different political orientations. There is much merit in what you have shared. I wish you all the best in your endeavours.

29

You’re being very ignorant.

Ice floating in the ocean, when melted, will not affect the ocean levels because it was already in the ocean to begin with - the displacement is the same. Consensus opinion here is the consensus of high school science experiments. You knew this and decided to obscure the issue on purpose, or you really need to recognize that you’re out of your element with respect to the science here.

Another consensus opinion is that sea ice is melting due to anthropogenic climate change, and that this lack of sea ice is a huge problem because it will drive climate change even faster. Focusing on sea level is a red herring - you know that, I wager.

There is a strong consensus that the climate change issue is politicized.

So is tobacco. And, in both cases, the science is very, very clear. You can get scientists to cast aspersions on the science, but the consensus obtains because of either (a) a preponderance of the facts, or (b) conspiracy. Claim the latter if you must


Feynman, your denialism is disappointing & ridiculous. Science consensus on these issues is very clear; your obfuscations & smoky hand-waving would be hilarious if they weren’t so detrimental.

1 Like
30

Ah. I see I didn’t express myself with enough context.
The story below is in context of a position paper written by a Buddhist organization on global warming. The main point of one section was that melting sea ice will cause sea level rise. That was not the only section in the paper that I judged incorrect, misleading and/or not helpful (not true, not correct, not beneficial) . IMO it was an example of a counter-productive communication, one that drives away the wise and informed.

This error indicated to me that the document hadn’t been appropriately reviewed. IMO it was an example of wrong speech and/or wrong diligence. This, I thought, was an example of the relevance of scientific findings to Buddhists.

The predictable social impacts of that mistake? It could lead informed readers to conclude that that the output of this group was not to be trusted. And they would be right to do so.

In general, in western and Buddhist traditions, a wise and emotionally mature person would be said to accept such corrections as constructive feedback. Some of the responses from this group were quite different. Their responses caused me to doubt my understand of the EBTs, in particular the relevance of the 8 Fold path of noble persons.

My general advise to Buddhist engaged in Climate Change action is:

  • Minimize references to science (see other posts in thread for the reasons why)
  • When communicating about the science use care and diligence. Seek out informed reviewers.
  • Experience shows that the best reviews come from skeptics and second from people like me who are fussy about details and scientific integrity. (see chap 7 of Originals by Adam Grant, excerpt here (search for “devils advocate”) or here)
  • One might ask: Is is wise to invite feedback from skeptics and deniers? For the purposes of getting constructive feedback that you might not otherwise get, emphatically yes! This is common knowledge among scholars and scientists.
1 Like
31

From above:
“One might ask: Is is wise to invite feedback from skeptics and deniers? For the purposes of getting constructive feedback that you might not otherwise get, emphatically yes! This is common knowledge among scholars and scientists.”

The ‘constructive’ content of their feedback could take to forms 1) if it is accurate then it could improve the science, 2) if it isn’t, it would provide a talking point to expose the detrimental impact of denialism - in a number of ways. The most dangerous and irresponsible way is in its capacity to inhibit meaningful change in an urgent situation.

It is astonishing that so many people feel no sense of urgency in the midst of this crisis that is already leading to death and destruction and, can only get worse before it gets better - if ever. This is not alarmism or histrionics this is what sanity, meaningful compassion and basic common sense look like!

May all beings be liberated from the widespread and increasingly dangerous impact of human greed, hatred and igorance. The time-bomb is still ticking it explodes just before midnight! As the Vissudhimagga asks: who can unknot the knot?

It is a good thing if ‘deniers’ can be encouraged into Earth care initiatives. In that sense, I thank Feynman for his best efforts! It is important that we meet and appreciate each other as Mitra’s in the Dhamma. The Dhamma is for everyone! :slightly_smiling_face:

32

I think you might try a different approach. Your initial comment on that document back when it was released was very harsh and demeaning, and so that might account for some of the negative initial reception your contribution received.

Also, you have not been very direct about the positions you are advocating concerning climate change science and policy. Statements of those positions have tended to be obscured under meta-discussions of critical thinking, scientific methodology and effective communications strategies. That’s your prerogative, but speaking for myself, that approach doesn’t build trust.

1 Like
33

I don’t pretend to be a good communicator - I am a barbarian with a loving heart. I don’t take prisoners!

I take different approaches according to the nature of the problem! When it comes to chronic misunderstandings and misrepresentations of Dhamma I feel compelled to do open heart surgery to save the patient.

I try to pull out the arrow even when the victim is asking questions about feathers and tree species. I give attention to expedient means and that is bound to ruffle many feathers. If it leads to a growing awareness of the Dhamma that liberates it has served its purpose. :innocent:

1 Like
34
35

I said: ‘I have taken the trouble to (provide) references to ‘actual’ happenings in the real world. This is what science is concerned with - and about?’ I have to clarify this statement: I am referring to hard science!

Thank you for your questions! They are important for an understanding of my comments regarding problematic attitudes towards science.

Hard science helps us to understand the ‘actual’ state of the natural environment. It provides us with the methods and tools to understand human-induced climate change and various other environmental threats to our long-term survival - en masse!

Social science is also a valuable tool for the analyses of the environmental crisis - as it pertains to social dynamics. In Psychology, we could understand the problem in terms of human conditioning and the problems this gives rise to when it comes to embracing meaningful change.

I make a distinction between different areas of inquiry that may help you to understand what my views are regarding hard science as a means for understanding the natural world. There are other forms of inquiry and understanding that are vitally important to our long-term survival.

As human beings we inhabit the natural environment and the noosphere*.

Hard science exists within the noosphere but it provides us with information about the Earth’s actual physical environment - that includes the lithosphere, biosphere and the atmosphere.

The Dhamma teachings are also in the noosphere. These teachings provide us with information about ‘liberation’ (moksha) and the path of purification.

We need to enter another area of direct inquiry to ‘discover’ the liberating Dhamma. Buddha-Dhamma includes - and goes beyond - the subtle spheres of the formless absorptions.

The liberating Dhamma is a consequence of insight. Insight - in Buddhism - is a direct and immediate seeing and knowing. It is not a form of discursive activity i.e. it is not found in the noosphere.

When different areas of inquiry get confused we get lost in the thicket of views! The liberating Dhamma is like a lost city in a dense wilderness. The Buddha found a path in that wilderness that leads to the lost city of liberation. This was a simile that the Buddha used to help us understand what he was trying to share with us for our welfare and liberation.

36

Turns out I was ignorant of fairly recent objective measures (2013) of arctic ocean albedo with the objective measures being larger than previous estimates.
I can’t confirm that it is a “huge” problem but it appears it is significant.
So @daverupa is correct. There is a potential feedback cycle of warming leading to melting, melting leading to increased solar radiation absorption, and increased absorption leading to enhanced warming.

The sea level change is not, however, a red herring as @daverupa accuses. The thread discussion was about sea level rise because that was the way the issue was presented to me.

I’ll avoid applying my imagination to more intemperate invective and name calling. I take refuge in the Buddha, the dharma, and the sanga. Not “the consensus”.

37

Dear Feynman, we need not worry about name calling etc. We have beautiful Dhamma mediators on this site that help us with our emotional reactions etc. Compared to other Buddhist discussion sites this one is well thought out by some great practitioners. They are here to help us when we get to carried away. We are in safe company - a place for open discussion and inquiry. Your presence here in this discussion has been very valuable and your work of building bridges between disparate groups is much appreciated. It is not a problem that we are not all on the same page.

“If everyone’s thinking alike then NO ONE is thinking.” - Benjamin Franklin

38

Are you sure?

I’m looking back
 it seems to me you mentioned it first
 I must not be seeing something


Or do you mean that climate change was presented to you as sea level issues, back in the day? In any case, it’s essential to use up-to-date information in topics like these, because they can get so charged.

Finally, with respect to the OP: science such as this is not a specifically Buddhist concern, it’s a general human concern, and as such it has relevance for people, whether or not they’re Buddhist. A Buddhist who chooses to prioritize doctrine over science is the main issue here; but I wager they aren’t often in conflict, at the practical level.

What I get uppity about, is when people demonstrate poor thinking about climate change; I doubt their ability to be critical thinkers in other areas of their life
 such as with Buddhism


39
40

Steven Hawking and statisticians have put it out there that we have 100 years to evacuate the planet, only a fool would ignore the information and remifications for the lack of future for their children, the species will be wiped out , perhaps it will prove a catalyst for. a short term political and social change for the positive? Perhaps not? Perhaps funding of space exploration will stop and funding of weapons of mass destruction also stop? To give those who may experience the effects of those changes far sooner than expected (25-100years) a better quality of life? Does it concern Buddhists, most definitely, will it impact practice, most definitely for many!

1 Like