Beach Haven

Light, Andrew. 2009. "Ecological Restoration and the Culture of Nature: A Pragmatic Perspective." Chap. 30 in Readings in the Philosophy of Technology, edited by David M. Kaplan, 452-467. Lanham, Boulder, New York, Toronto, Plymouth: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.

What is Included in Philosophy?

In his article, Andrew Light focuses on the philosophical niche of environmentalism. His main argument is that philosophy should take a role informing activists, policy makers, and the public at large on ecological issues. “If we talk only to each other about value theory, we have failed…” (p. 453). To support this strong statement, Light argues from the specific perspective of ecology. Can such a normative pronouncement be generalized to other niche areas of philosophy, or even to philosophy in general?

In order to plead support for philosophical activism, Andrew Light examines the specific controversy of ecological restoration. The controversy is a normative should question. Should humanity invest in projects intended to restore ecosystems that have been changed through human activity? He examines positions by philosophers such as Robert Elliot and Eric Katz who are against any restorative attempts on several grounds; we have neither obligation nor ability, and any attempts yield artifacts not nature.

Light argues in favor of what he calls ‘benevolent restoration’ on a number of grounds. He notes how even an imperfect restoration can free nature to grow and replace itself where man starts the process. Without any effort by humans, nature often cannot replace itself in damaged areas except with maybe something completely different than what once was. He calls this catalyst approach ‘intermediate communication’. Light further points to how such attempts at restoration tend to restore a culture of nature, if not nature itself. This last point seems similar to Bruno Latour’s position that when a human actor and a technological actant join, it can result in something entirely different than either inter-actor would create on its own. Light calls this interaction “firsthand exposure… to the actual consequences of human domination of nature” (p. 464).
​

This line of reason by Light is persuasive to one who may already be inclined to support ecological issues, but doesn’t actually make the case of why philosophy should do more than contemplate. For example, is sharing philosophical perspective with activists, policy makers, and the public more akin to scientific communications than philosophy?

Here in Virginia the weather has been vacillating between too-cold-for-an-old-guy-like-me, and perfect-for-an-afternoon-jog-or-a-little-yard-work. Sometimes at night we get clear skies that make for perfect star-gazing so long as the wind isn’t blowing enough to make the crisp night air feel more like bone-chills. This is the time of year when Mother Nature can’t seem to make up her mind. They say it’s all about the jet stream. Recently my wife and I were able to make the trek over to Solomon’s Island were we keep our little sailboat. We needed to change out two mooring lines that were excessively chafed. While we were there we did a few other maintenance requirements. It was nice to get a few hours on the water, even if we were just tied up to the dock.

In March I filled a church assignment by speaking in the young single adult (YSA) congregation. It was a nice change of pace for me. I’ve worked with youth for so many years. We always tell the youth that they would be making the most important decisions of their lives in just a few years. For the YSA members, they are making those decisions now. Decisions about missionary service, career paths, marriage, and whether they will choose to hold onto the light they have gained up to this point, or allow the ‘wisdom of man’ to sway them.

This question of whose wisdom we should aspire is an important one to me. I’ve had many thoughts and experiences over decades that have brought clarity around issues of ‘fact’ and issues of ‘truth’. I find it interesting that the current academic field of study I’m pursuing puts a great deal of focus on these concepts as to their forms, or even their existence. There are so many ways to think about the arguments. There is no way to really do these ideas justice in such a short format as this blog post. I find it so interesting that schools or disciplines in science and engineering claim solidity in either or both ideas (facts and truth), yet ultimately reach so many differing conclusions that the variability of support for and against ‘established’ facts, and the supposed truth they lead to, are left suspect. This variability in itself puts in question why anyone would stand firmly behind conclusions that directly contradict truth revealed by way of the Spirit. Let me give you just a few examples of what I mean.

Scientific and engineering disciplines seek to define ‘truth’ in a very specific way. Its practitioners (I am among them by the way) will argue that it starts with data (facts). It really doesn’t though. It really starts with a question, followed by a hypothesis, then the design of an experiment, then the carrying out of that experiment, then an interpretation of the data the experiment produces, then a depiction of the interpretation. At every step of the way a human is making decisions about how to do something, as well as what to leave in, and what to leave out. We call this deciding what is relevant. The human is communicating all of this to other humans. Each human looks at the information and process along the way slightly differently. Eventually, by convention, experts generally agree on what the facts are. Assemble enough agreed upon facts and one has evidence. Assemble enough agreed upon evidence and one has proof. Assemble enough agreed upon proof and one has truth. Sadly, the road along this method is riddled with facts, evidence, proof and truths that with subsequent similar effort prove to be neither facts nor truth. I know what we immediately derive from this. That means such a method is self-correcting. Yes it is, so long as the later correction is closer to truth than the previous version. Since we don’t have absolute truth to compare the outcomes of our effort to, we can never really be absolutely sure with this method.

I use two tools to explain. These tools are really the same tool described from opposite perspectives. They both address variability. If you are a mathematical person, you might wonder where the magic wand of a ‘constant’ comes from. As a young student I was taught what constants were needed for a given formula to perform a specific calculation. Constants are used in all scientific fields. A constant is either an unchanging number, or a standard function that one inserts into a formula to reveal a hoped-for outcome. I always wondered what motivated the genius scientists to create such a powerful mystical tool that can make the formula (sort of) work every time. The answer as it turns out is that a constant is a trick. One takes the formula that is thought up to create or interpret data. Often the data has variability, meaning it does not form a perfect pattern of some kind (a line, a curve, etc.). If there is too much variability then the data (facts) don’t support a hypothesis. Run the numbers enough times, such as in use of a Monte-Carlo simulation, and the data might sort of fit the pattern one is looking for (meaning the data are statistically significant). How to make that better? Figure out a constant that can lower variability to something more acceptable. Like magic, the expected shape, though not perfectly adhered to within the data, gets closer than the non-constant-laden formula produces.

If science approaches variability by cleaning up data through use of a formulaic constant, engineering approaches it through setting limits of acceptability known collectively as ‘tolerance’. Engineers simply accept that there is no actual perfect answer, but there is a range of answers that work ‘good enough’ to complete a task at hand. The result is a requirement creation in the form of a measurement of some kind plus-or-minus some degree of imperfection. It might be a length, weight, pressure, temperature, etc. measurement with an allowable percentage of variation. In my world of communications networks we call this approach creating a ‘link budget’. Science adjusts a formula to better align data with what’s expected. Engineering leaves out anything that gets too far from what’s expected. Is that thing actually a meter long, or is it more-or-less a meter long? The second is always the best answer.

Where am I going with this? Truth cannot be a function of what we agree to. For me, truth is a discreet statistical sample. Something is or is not true. The same can be said for facts. What is not a discrete sample, but rather a continuum, is the validity of what one accepts as fact or truth when dependent purely on human logic and reasoning; this is the ‘wisdom of man’. The answer for me has been in coming to rely on the revelatory guidance of the Holy Ghost. One must put in the effort of reason and logic to understand truth claims, then seek direct confirmation from Heavenly Father who knows all truth and is eager to share with those willing to both ask and act. For me, this is the definition of faith. It’s not just believing blindly. Faith is purposeful action that leads one to truth. Faith is understanding that despite all we do on our own we can never really come to knowledge of truth through data and reason alone.
​

Feenberg, Andrew. 2005. "Critical Theory of Technology: An Overview." Tailoring Biotechnologies 1 (1): 47-64.

Andrew Feenberg concludes that Critical Theory of Technology is “the argument of our time” (p. 63). How can the philosophy of technology “join together… potentiality and actuality – norms and facts – in a way no other disciplines can rival” (Ibid.)?

That’s a strong claim. Feenberg seems to be saying that other disciplines do not have the ability to synthesize both theoretical and empirical approaches as well as not just the philosophy of technology, but the specific version of philosophy of technology known as Critical Theory. Perhaps a key focal point to his description of this approach is in the idea of recontextualization. Criticism (analysis) of technology leads to decontextualization. Try as we humans might, we are not able to fully separate technology from its context. The result is a redefinition of context. Feenberg claims these attempts tend to minimize social constraints, but not fully eliminate them. In an attempt to redefine social context, risk still exists that social and political decisions are biased due to unequal power.
​
Is that really what happens? This line of reasoning seems to answer the theoretical portion of Feenberg’s conclusion. What of the empirical? He notes how “technical advances break down the barriers between spheres of activity” (p.62). Although he advocates critical theory of technology, it’s not clear that there are no other approaches that are able to reconcile “many apparently conflicting strands of reflection on technology” as he claims (Ibid.).