FOLLOWING a judge's decision at a British employment tribunal that Tim Nicholson, a sustainability officer who was sacked from a property firm, was entitled to legal protection for his philosophical belief in climate change, scientists have been expressing their shock.
"As a scientist who works on climate change, I find it deeply alarming," said Myles Allen, who heads the Climate Dynamics group at the University of Oxford. Allen's concerns are entirely understandable.
Since the rise of the modern era, science has prided itself on its capacity to explain the world on the basis of experimentation, research and, above all, hard evidence. Science emerged, self-consciously, as an alternative to world views based on faith, moral conviction and other forms of a priori thought. So it is natural that a genuine scientist would feel insulted by judge Michael Burton's ruling that Nicholson's concern with climate change qualified as a philosophical belief under the Religion and Belief Regulations, 2003. Read more.
"As a scientist who works on climate change, I find it deeply alarming," said Myles Allen, who heads the Climate Dynamics group at the University of Oxford. Allen's concerns are entirely understandable.
Since the rise of the modern era, science has prided itself on its capacity to explain the world on the basis of experimentation, research and, above all, hard evidence. Science emerged, self-consciously, as an alternative to world views based on faith, moral conviction and other forms of a priori thought. So it is natural that a genuine scientist would feel insulted by judge Michael Burton's ruling that Nicholson's concern with climate change qualified as a philosophical belief under the Religion and Belief Regulations, 2003. Read more.