Noting Bertrand Russell on Skepticism

By
Branko Terzic

Skeptics on the issue climate change caused by our use of fossil fuels often cite the notion that “not all experts agree.” This is often expressed as “there is no unanimous opinion” held by experts. Compounding the problem is that there is certainly a difference of opinion as to the definition or qualification of which “climate change expert” would be polled. A further issue is that it should not be experts on “climate change” who should have the control over decisions as to what to do about climate change since the ramifications are economic, social, and political.

Bertrand Russel published “Skeptical Essays” (1928), and in the Introduction: On the Value of Skepticism, on p. 12 he wrote:

"Even when the experts all agree, they may well be mistaken. Einstein’s view as to the magnitude of the deflection of light by gravitation would have been rejected by all experts not many years ago, yet it proved to be right. Nevertheless, the opinion of experts, when it is unanimous, must be accepted by non-experts as more likely to be right than the opposite opinion.

The skepticism that I advocate amounts only to this: (1) that when the experts are agreed, the opposite opinion cannot be held to be certain; (2) that when they are not agreed, no opinion can be regarded as certain by a non-expert; and (3) that when they all hold that no sufficient grounds for a positive opinion exist, the ordinary man would do well to suspend his judgment.

These propositions may seem mild, yet, if accepted, they would absolutely revolutionize human life.

The opinions for which people are willing to fight and persecute all belong to one of the three classes which this skepticism condemns. When there are rational grounds for an opinion, people are content to set them forth and wait for them to operate. In such cases, people do not hold their opinions with passion; they hold them calmly and set forth their reasons quietly.

The opinions that are held with passion are always those for which no good ground exists; indeed, the passion is the measure of the holder’s lack of rational conviction. Opinions in politics and religion are almost always held passionately.”

"These propositions may seem mild and unadorned, yet, if accepted, they would absolutely revolutionize human life."

One observer wrote:

“Taking as his starting-point the irrationality of the world, Russell offers by contrast something 'wildly paradoxical and subversive' - the position that reason should determine human actions instead of the dogma and superstition often found in religious and political beliefs. In his clear, engaging prose, Russell guides the reader through the many key philosophical issues that affect our daily lives - freedom, happiness, emotions, ethics, and beliefs - and offers his characteristic no-nonsense advice.”

Some critics have recently commented that extreme climate change advocates have let “political and religious beliefs” cloud their judgement about both the pace of climate change and the mitigation necessary. They offer this as an explanation as to why non-carbon emitting and energy dense nuclear power is not widely seen as a solution to the dilemma of growth in electric energy demand and need to reduce future carbon dioxide emissions.

Let the climate change experts lead us to face the problem but it must be the energy experts who should fashion the solutions. That would fit Russel’s model.