Last week, I posted about the naturalistic fallacy, and why it’s important to avoid falling back on this kind of reasoning. But then I started thinking about intuition, and how much I actually value what my intuition has to say.
Where Science Fails…
As important as it is to give science the consideration it deserves, the fact is, science totally sucks at some things. And one of those things is dealing with sustainability. Not all of sustainability,but certainly the part that involves projecting the precise results of our actions on the biosphere and human health. The more complex the system, the worse science is at creating specific models. So when you get to something as big as, say, every interconnected system in the entire world, science ends up chasing after the target, woefully behind.
Take, for example, the development of DDT. When DDT was invented, it was awesome. Talk about a great invention – a insecticide that had no effect on mammals. They even gave the guy a Nobel Prize for it! Some scientists expressed concern about possible risks, but it is too difficult to predict certain results within a complex system. But then concerns were confirmed when things (like bald eagles) started dropping dead. Too bad it was already too late. And, oh wait, it harms humans too. Oops.
Intuition Succeeds?
DDT (and a bunch of other similar examples) make me wonder if our intuitions have an edge here. Because my intuition says pretty clearly that dumping tons of toxins (even ones that supposedly don’t affect mammals) into the environment is a bad thing. Kind of like my intuition is not a huge fan of genetically engineering similar insect-killing chemicals into corn, which will then become part of almost every item of processed food I consume.
This is how the conversation usually goes:
Intuition: That’s just not right. That’s just not safe. That’s just not… natural.
Me: Intuition, that’s the naturalistic fallacy. That’s not a good enough reason.
Intuition: I don’t care. It’s not natural. Don’t eat that. Don’t do that. Don’t buy that.
And usually I listen, and then go do a bunch of research so that I have a “good” reason for what is fundamentally an act of listening to my intuition. I’m never really surprised when the science catches up and reveals that my intuition was right all along.
The Problem of Articulating
The other issue that was brought up in the comments of the naturalistic fallacy post is that of articulation – what a good point! Sometimes people feel something, know something, but have a really hard time understanding or articulating why they feel that way. It might be because they don’t understand why they feel the way they do. Or maybe they understand the issue completely and just struggle to communicate it clearly.
Either way, the result is often expressed as naturalistic fallacy – it’s just not natural – when the issue is articulation. And in either case, it’s an example of your intuition having an understanding beyond what you are able to clearly express. It seems like that should get to count for something…
But where does this leave us? Are we back to a place where we value intuition, hunches, and gut reactions, even though they can muddle a dialogue which needs to be based in some measure of science? Or must we continue to watch as the science chases the consequences of unpredictable actions?
What, if any, role should intuition play in the dialogue about sustainability?
Related Posts:
Related posts:
Jess,
I think it is relevant to observe that a scientific process invented DDT and a scientific process identified and quantified its harmful effects.
So what do we do? Stop in our tracks?
As you mentioned the problem is we live in a highly complex world of interdependencies, some not yet defined.
The real place where intuition comes in is, when a change thought beneficial is identified, what is a reasonable set of tests to do prior to release.
Anyone seeking 100% safety would need to be already dead since life is inherently a fatal disease. Once you catch it you are certain to die from it. Picking that line down the middle between too risk averse to move forward and so cavalier as to be dangerous is the best application of intuition I know.
Doug
Systems sustainability theory actually answers this question pretty well. It is not a matter of trying to chase down countless effects that we have no means of predicting, but of staying within the “constraints of the system.” We’re discussing this extensively in the class I’m taking, because it’s from a systems perspective. It’s really fascinating stuff, and changes the game as far as “reasonable testing” is concerned – but in a good way that encourages progress on all levels.
Nice post, Jess. In a sense, this seems like part of a larger that many of us have, with ourselves and with other folks.
On the one hand, we have science and other forms of logical, linear rationality. On the other hand, we have experiences and understandings and senses (like intuition) that inform our lives, as well as our ecological perspectives and actions. Culturally, most modern people are heavily geared toward the former, yes?
Thanks so much for your comment! I am not sure whether I would say that modern people are geared towards the former. What I have noticed is a tendency for people to act from their intuitions/heart/gut, but then try to find a way to justify it logically. For whatever reason, being “logical” is seen as a positive trait, so I think we expend a lot of energy finding logical rationality behind our very emotion-driven lives. Thoughts?
Yes, good point, Jess. There is a lot of after-the-fact explaining, for sure!
Perhaps my thought is better rephrased as “most modern people are heavily geared toward needing to frame things in terms of the former,” even when our lives are informed by those other “experiences and understandings and senses.”
I would so agree with that. I wonder to what extent our need to frame things rationally hinders us… hard for me to even imagine, since I am one of those who needs to rationalize everything.
Typo there: That first line should read, “In a sense, this seems like part of a larger conversation that many of us have…”
Nobody said science is perfect…but it’s the most reliable system we have of knowing. Intuition is simply NOT reliable. Intuition tells us the Earth stands still and the sun moves in the sky, when it’s the Earth that moves. Intuition tells us to turn handlebars left to turn left instead of right. Intuition tells us the universe is made of gasses, liquids and solids, when it’s almost entirely vacuum. Intuition CAN be right…but there is NO WAY to know when it’s right or wrong…until science figures it out. Substituting intuition for science is simply a bad idea.