In the Aftermath of the Penokee Mine: Failures in Political Discourse

Article by Nathaniel Taylor

It seems to follow that in every attempt at meaningful and informative discourse with a person of opposing beliefs, both parties will attempt to use data, statistics, graphs, and other empirical, scientific conclusions to justify their personal beliefs or any policy action that they might endorse. Specifically, we see this method of arguing involved in the stalling (I say stalling; it’ll be back, just wait) of the Penokee Mine in Ashland county. I suppose the most interesting part of these discussions is the point in which both parties refuse to agree with the other’s data and statistics due to some inexplicable discontinuity or nonconformity with the data or statistics that they are acquainted with. It often seems at times that the liberal and conservative think tanks aim only to publish opposing data and statistics, resulting in the final bamboozlement of our citizenry. If we were look at the nature of these
disagreements, we come to see that the foundations of the discordance in beliefs are based not on any form of different factual evidence, but instead on fundamentally different philosophical suppositions. Let us illustrate this claim through the example of the Penokee mine and show that it is not, in fact, the data that is the source of the disagreement, but the fundamental belief held by the individuals that is the necessary component in proper and meaningful discourse.

If we look at many current environmental issues, we see a staggering amount of disagreement in the political and social arena. The environmentalists use scientific facts and figures to support and justify their ideologies of progress towards the realization of humans as stewards of the environment, whereas the big oil and mining companies use their scientific knowledge to show that they can extract minerals and resources responsibly and safely. However, regardless of the validity of either side’s scientific information, neither side finds itself able to change its perspectives. One may find themselves lost in a sea of obscure and unintelligible figures and jargon concerning different informational rhetoric used by separate parties. For instance, it is common for a person who believes in an anthropogenic-centered climate change to point their attention to carbon emissions and glacial melting. Similarly, it is conventional of any person who denies anthropogenic climate change to point to solar patterns and activities as their central explanation of climatic phenomenon. These disagreeing views cannot be explained as a mere miscommunication or disconformity within the scientific knowledge, seeing as the scientific community is largely in agreement about anthropogenic climate change.

It is the duty of any person who finds themselves impassioned by matters political or philosophical to refine their methods of discourse involving the specific topics one may discuss, and yet we see a horrible failure in our political arena to support meaningful discourse about any sort of issue or disagreement. Politics has strayed from the virtuous path defined by Aristotle and has turned, sadly, into a system of petty arguments and misinformation. No doubt in discussing the epistemic views in absurdism, Camus had an amazing foresight into the future world of American politics. One may be driven to a point of such outrageous frustration by the bickering of congress to believe that either a) all congress people are idiots, b) the institution of science is purely a political, subjective system of changing variables and data to reflect one’s worldview, or c) the world is, in fact, the embodiment of the absurd and can never be knowable to the mind. Let us avoid such skepticisms (a discussion for another time) and pry into the true failures in our political discourse.

The first thing that must be realized to understand why our discourse is failing is to understand that science is not the only foundation of knowledge. No doubt the naturalistic perspective is, in an increasingly scientific and secular world, the one of the more popular world views which to prescribe; however, scientific validity, for most people, does not instantly constitute epistemic belief. Though science tells us that all solid matter is mostly made of empty space, we still consider solid things to be completely solid. The main fallacy within any discourse is the belief that people should be able to shift their beliefs on the drop of a hat due to some scientific evidence. When contexts, such as global warming, have more to do with gradual and incremental change than instantaneous, empirically verifiable change, people may be reluctant to shift their beliefs because they have not or cannot directly view and verify these sorts of phenomenon. The scientific paradigm also fails due to a large movement of jaded mistrust. If for a political or religious reason, many people are disinclined to believe scientific findings of any sort due to a mistrust of the scientific institution. Though the scientific paradigm is popular, it’s popularity need not be the reason for its validity, and therefore cannot be used objectively to establish belief.

Since science fails to be the ultimate decider in philosophical beliefs, we must move beyond it in discourse. One’s environmental perspective does not rely on scientific data on rising temperatures and sea levels; it relies on their own supposition as to what has value in this world and the role of humanity. The disagreement is not on an empirical level, it is instead on an epistemological level. The disagreement is not a matter of whose data is better, but a disagreement of how humans are to use resources on this planet. The foundation of environmentalism is not that global climate change is occurring; it lies in the foundational belief that humans have the responsibility to, in choosing to destroy or preserve, always choose to preserve the environment, with the supposition that nature, unadulterated, has value. Subsequently, the opposing view point does not belief that nature has value, and that humans may use natural resources as they see fit. The discourse should not focus on whether or not a certain data table is valid, the question should be focused on whether or not nature has any worth. If congress were to actually debate these philosophical issues, we as a society may actually grow intellectually and rationally as we struggle with a plethora of ethical and aesthetic questions.

The discourse over the Penokee mine can be salvaged. Many people in Ashland County are caught up in an argument between environmentalism and jobs. Environmentalists are showing off their statistics on water pollution and habitat loss as the mining company is publishing statistics on the safety and efficiency of their mining tactics. The discourse has resulted in a false dichotomy, a comparison of two radical ideas believing them to be categorical. To people in Ashland County, it has come down to “jobs or the environment”.

Discourse need not be this way. We need not spend countless hours arguing over ideas that we ourselves have made categorical. It is virtue of humanity to face problems in new and creative ways. We need not choose between jobs or the environment; we may instead strive to seek both via creative and inventive methods. And if we find no ways to have both, we must deliberate and choose after meaningfully discussing the foundations of each party’s beliefs. We must move to improve our discourse; avoid merely arguing statistics and showing tables and graphs and begin to reason and argue the beliefs that truly separate people. Political discourse must move away from safe and easy justifications like science and begin to delve into the true nature of a person’s worldview. We must not seek to rectify our beliefs scientifically; we must instead begin to rectify our beliefs philosophically.