Waiting for Proof

America is a product of Enlightenment thinking. Madison, Jefferson, Adams, Franklin, and many of the other founders believed in the power of reason and science (which they called natural philosophy). They held firmly to the belief that the progress of humankind went along with increases in knowledge. What science could demonstrate, people should accept and integrate into institutions, policies, and daily life.

This belief in the power of evidence-based science has led to some of our greatest advances in the past two hundred years, and it is integrated into our thinking and language. "Where's the data?" "Can you prove that? "How can you be sure?" Be "reason"able. We assume that we should need and ask for evidence - empirical data, facts, and scientifically based conclusions before we can confidently move forward.

But in addition to its great gifts, evidence-based decision making has one major drawback: sometimes the evidence is not clear, there is a debate about what the data mean, so we are not sure what the "truth" is. Take two situations we now face. First, the national debt, which is (there is clear data on this) over $9 trillion dollars. Has this reached a point where servicing the debt and trying to pay it off threatens our economic prosperity - if not immediately then in the foreseeable future? Economists disagree, as do policymakers. Second, consider the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide. Has this reached the point where ill effects on global climate, plant and animal life, as well as human well-being are evident and inevitable? Few scientists doubt the data on the levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide, but some scientists and policy makers disagree on why those levels exist and what they mean for the future.

Given these disagreements among reasonable people, we seem to fall into two camps on how to respond. The first is to insist on better and more data, and more scientific thinking, before we act. Enlightenment admirers might counsel this way of proceeding. It seems the approach we are taking now. But it carries a huge risk: when we can be sure of the facts, will it be too late to take effective action? In short, could we reach a tipping point with both the debt and the atmosphere where no action can reverse the cascade of ill effects that follow?

Those who raise this question are often considered alarmists - people who seek to frighten us into (unreasonable) action. It is also worth noting, however, that buried in the "let's wait till the data are clear" line of thinking is usually an admiration for and assumption about science itself that: whatever the ill, science can overcome it. Appropriately tuned fiscal policy in the case of the debt, and such tools as carbon sequestration in the case of the atmosphere, are there ready to be used if and when we need them. We ought to acknowledge, however, that the science to justify this belief in science is absent. We are staking our believe in science on faith.

The second approach we might take toward uncertainty about the debt and atmospheric carbon dioxide is to be conservative (small letter "c"). That is, we act as if the data are real and then ask: what should we do? In short, we take steps to mitigate the downstream effects before they have a chance to show up. In the case of the debt, we make fiscal and monetary adjustments now rather than waiting until severe damage to the economy and individuals is evident and unavoidable. In the case of the atmosphere, we decrease carbon emissions now rather than waiting until it may be too late to reverse the levels and their resulting damage. Some pain comes with this approach, of course, since it may mean denying current pleasures to find the resources and take the steps needed to fend off later disaster. These are clearly "pay me now" rather than "pay me later" approaches.

So the question may well be: how big a gamble are we willing to take? As a nation, we are on the path in both areas that says: "there may be a problem, but let's wait and see. If there is, (economic and atmospheric) science will confirm we need to act and also see us through."

On a personal level, this might be likened to considering what we do as parents of a child who faces the prospect of getting a deadly disease. Given the choice of waiting to see if he or she is one of the very few who will be struck down or giving a vaccination that itself carries a small risk of serious illness, the reasonable parent does not wait for the disease to strike in the hope of treating it then. The importance of preventive action is clear even though the risk of the disease appearing is uncertain or even low. Life is too precious to wait for conclusive evidence that harm has arrived.

Thomas Jefferson, in a letter to James Madison written while the former was in Paris as Minister to France, articulated the principle that "the world belongs in usufruct to the living generation." What Jefferson meant was that no generation had the right to encumber the next with its debts, be they monetary, environmental, or political. Jefferson, that enlightened man of science, did not derive this from scientific reasoning. He derived it from moral philosophy.

Is it possible that our reliance on science, on waiting for the proof, has insulated us from the moral thinking without which science is a neutral instrument, as likely to cause damage as do good? Waiting for proof in the case of the debt and the atmosphere may be scientifically sound but it just might also be socially suicidal. Perhaps true enlightenment blends scientific reasoning with moral imagination.