Whole Earth Measurements

Abstract

Let us take a very commonplace, often discussed and critical topic within our conversations regarding critical issues: Are we detecting a Greenhouse Effect, and related to this, is it exacerbated by i.e., human actions? At this occasion I suspect that most of you would be inclined to give a positive answer to both of these questions. But, if pushed philosophically, what would be the evidence, and well grounded would it be for such affirmations? Within scientific communities and associated scientifically informed circles, the answers have to be somewhat more ambiguous, particularly when rigorous questions concerning evidence are raised. Were scientific truth to be a matter of consensus-and some contemporary philosophers of science argue that scientific truth often turns out to be just that-then it is clear that there is beginning to be a kind of majoritarian consensus among many earth science practicioners that the temperature of the Earth, particularly of the oceans, is, indeed rising and that this is a crucial indicator for a possible Greenhouse Effect. Most of these scientists admit that the mean oceanic temperature has risen globally in the last several decades. But this generalization depends upon (a) accurate may be, not just for samples, but for the earth. A hot spot-for example the now four year old hot spot near New Guinea, which is part of the El Nino cycle-doesn't count by itself because it might be balanced by cold spots elsewhere. And the fact of the matter is that whole earth measurements are still rare and primitive in the simple sense that we simply don't have enough thermometers out. (b) Secondly, even if we have enough thermometers, a simply synchronic earth measurement over three decades is but a blip in the diachronic history of Ice Age cycles over the last tens of thousands of years. (c) Thirdly, even if we know that the Earth is now heating up, much ofthis is due to homogenic factors, such as CFCs, C02 increases, hydrocarbon burning, and the like? Is it the case, as Science magazine claimed in 1990, that 24% of greenhouse encouraging gases are of homogenic origin? As I have described the current debate it does not sound on the surface to be very philosophical, instead it seems empirical and thus within the domain of scientific discourse. However, in the way in which the story was cast, there lurk some deep epistemological issues which relate to my ironic first subtitle, how many phenomenologists does it take to detect a greenhouse effect? What I wish to do in this essay is to look both at classical phenomenology (Husserl in particular) and at Heideggerian hermeneutics regarding our theme, environmental phenomenology,' and show that both approaches are to be found wanting with respect to the Greenhouse Effect phenomenon. Then I wish to show a rather radically modified hermeneutic and phenomenological epistemology can address this problem. This modification entails two positive concepts, both of which, I will argue, are necessary for a phenomenological approach to issues: Technoscience, as a thoroughly technologically embodied science, as a necessary concept to get at presumed sub-perceptual entities, and Earth-as-Planet, as a necessary presupposition for dealing with earth measurements. Classical phenomenology, I argue, lacks the first of these concepts, and Heideggerian romanticism rejects the latter. Let us begin with a very simple phenomenological question: from what standpoint or perspective can the issue of earth be made? If, at base, our very knowledge is constituted by way of our bodies and through perception as both Husserl and Merleau-Ponty seem to contend, then what is claimed about earth measrurements becomes problematical in two senses: First, do we get a sufficiently encompassing perspective to talk about a earth? …