英文论文范文:The Environment and Environmental Hysteria [4]
论文作者:www.51lunwen.org论文属性:职称论文 Scholarship Papers登出时间:2015-04-23编辑:Cinderella点击率:7709
论文字数:2392论文编号:org201504230958193772语种:英语 English地区:中国价格:免费论文
关键词:
摘要:本文探讨了“过度环保主义”的现象,提醒人们注意环境保护与尊重科学之间的界限。
tical significance,' not certainty. In short, a hypothesis about certain data is statistically significant if there is a probability of less than 5% that the observed results were a result of random chance, rather than due to the hypothesized reasons. What Fumento seems thus to have forgotten is that the standard for accepted results in science is that of 95% rather than 100% certainty.
Lastly, Fumento ignores the fact that in the case of toxicological knowledge, in particular, the positive claims about toxicity are subject to a great amount of uncertainty. We have not been able to get anywhere near the same level of certainty about the harmfulness of most toxins as we have about the force of gravity, for example. In other areas, we have not even begun to approach the 5%'boundary' What I think this question boils down to then, is the matter of who decides what level of risk is acceptable. Scientists who do not acknowledge a risk as present until 'there is evidence amounting to proof beyond a reasonable doubt' lead society to a situation where 'experts in effect tolerate risks that the general public might consider unacceptable (121).' The precautionary principle places the burden on proving that a substance is safe rather than that it is not. It is based upon the idea that it is more important to avert a possible disaster (the probability is never zero) and forgo a potential great benefit, than risk the disaster because either we are not sure how likely it is to happen, or because the benefits are great. In other words, this is a corollary belief that it is not acceptable to let technology and industry act unhindered, under the assumption that they are improving life. Rather, it draws on the vast stor e of cases where 'the facts' have 'come in' (425) to implicate technology as having decreased rather than increased our quality of life, and rejects this vision of everprogressing technology. Instead, it argues, we must take cautious steps which recognize the value of preserving the present, as well as considering the promise of the future. Especially when possible missteps are irreversible, the precautionary principle seems very wise indeed.
Extrapolating from this case, therefore, it seems necessary to acknowledge that scientific expertise should not be privileged to the exclusion of other interpretations when the issue at hand contains 'many technical uncertainties (121).' The justification for giving scientist the ultimate authority 'relies int he implicit assumption that the panel's expertise and structural position sufficiently qualify it to serve as the final authority on the view of risk (123).' However, (especially) in circumstances of uncertainty, it is necessary to make value judgements, because the facts are not well enough known. Indeed, looking back on the absoluteness with which the SAP rejected the OPP's stance as 'unscientific' we might wonder whether scientists shouldn't be named 'fanatics' due to their inability to acknowledge the uncertainties underlying their decisions. Determinations such as 'whether the risk of additional exposure was warranted' should be made not by an elite cadre of experts (121). Rather, decisions should be made either by agencies such as OPP, which need be accountable to the public through the courts and the media, or via participatory decision-making where everyone's viewpoint has a chance to be heard. In a democracy, we simply cannot allow a small group
本论文由英语论文网提供整理,提供论文代写,英语论文代写,代写论文,代写英语论文,代写留学生论文,代写英文论文,留学生论文代写相关核心关键词搜索。