Senator, You’re No Socrates

The Conversation

Patrick Stokes, Deakin University

In ‘The Clouds,’ Aristophanes depicts Socrates as a sophist, suspended in a basket to enable him to study the skies.
Joannes Sambucus, 1564

So, we all knew Malcolm Roberts, former project leader of the climate denialist Galileo Movement turned One Nation politician, would make an ‘interesting’ first speech to the Senate. If you’ve been following Senator Roberts’ career, most of what he said was more or less predictable. The UN (“unelected swill” – take a bow, PJK), the IMF and the EU are monstrous socialist behemoths with a “frightening agenda,” climate change is a “scam,” the “tight-knit international banking sector” (a dangerous phrase given Roberts’ history of discussing international “banking families”) are “One of the greatest threats to our liberty and life as we know it.”

It may be startling to hear this in one concentrated burst, from a senator, last thing on a Tuesday afternoon, but if you’re familiar with the more conspiratorial corners of the internet this was all fairly pedestrian stuff.

What was more surprising, at least in passing, was Roberts comparing himself to Socrates:

Like Socrates, I love asking questions to get to the truth.

A Socratic questioner in the Senate! The gadfly of Athens, who cheerfully punctured the delusions of the comfortable and reduced them to frozen bewilderment with just a few cheerfully framed questions like some Attic Columbo, has apparently taken up residence in the red chamber. This should be a golden age for rational inquiry, right?


Epistemic revolt

The choice of Socrates, like that of Galileo, is no accident. Both fit neatly into a heroic “one brave man against the Establishment” narrative of scientific progress that climate denialists like to identify with. Both eventually changed the trajectory of human knowledge. But along the way, both suffered persecution. Galileo was made to recant his “heretical” heliocentrism under threat of torture and spent his last years under house arrest. Socrates, charged with impiety and corrupting the youth and denounced in court by one Meletus, was put to death. Of course that’s not nearly as rough as the brutal suppression of Malcolm Roberts, who has been cruelly oppressed with a three year Senate seat and a guest slot on Q&A. But you get the idea.


Most importantly, both Socrates and Galileo function here as emblems of a kind of epistemic individualism. They’re ciphers for a view of knowledge generation as a contest between self-sufficient individual thinkers and a faceless, mediocre ‘they,’ instead of a collective and social process governed by internal disciplinary norms and standards.

Roberts doesn’t simply like asking questions – anyone can do that. No, he wants to be like Socrates: someone who refuses to accept the answers he’s given, and dismantles them with clinical, exhaustive precision. Malcolm Roberts wants to work it all out for himself, scientific community be damned. If Socrates could, why can’t he? Why can’t each of us?

Distributed knowledge

But Socrates, living at the dawn of scholarly inquiry, had the luxury of being a polymath. “Philosopher” simply means “lover of wisdom,” and early philosophers were forced to be rather promiscuous with that love. Physicist, logician, meteorologist, astronomer, chemist, ethicist, political scientist, drama critic: the Greek philosopher was all of these and more by default. The intellectual division of labour had not yet taken place, because all fields of inquiry were in their infancy.

Also well known for their skill at Invisible Basketball. Raphael

Fast forward two and a half thousand years and the situation is radically different. The sciences have long since specialised past the point where non-specialists can credibly critique scientific claims. There is now simply too much knowledge, at too great a pitch of complexity, for anyone to encompass and evaluate it all. The price we pay for our expanding depth of knowledge is that what we know is increasingly distrubuted between the increasingly specialised nodes of increasingly complex informational networks.

That fact, in turn, emphasises our mutual epistemic dependence. I rely daily on the expert competence and good will of thousands of people I never see and will never meet, from doctors to builders to engineers and lawyers – and climate scientists, who wrangle with the unimaginably complex fluid dynamics of our planet.

So what do you if you find yourself up against a network of specialist knowledge that disagrees with your core beliefs? Do you simply accept that you’re not in a position to assess their claims and rely, as we all must, on others? Do you, acknowledging your limitations, defer to the experts?

If you’re Socrates today, then yes, you probably do. The true genius of Socrates as Plato presents him that he understands his limitations better than anyone around him:

And is not this the most reprehensible form of ignorance, that of thinking one knows what one does not know? Perhaps, gentlemen, in this matter also I differ from other men in this way, and if I were to say that I am wiser in anything, it would be in this, that not knowing very much about the other world, I do not think I know. (Apology 29b)

Dismissing expertise

But deferring to those who know better is not the sort of Socrates Malcolm Roberts wants to be. If you want to be a Roberts-style Socrates, instead of conceding your ignorance, you cling to some foundational bit of putative knowledge that allows you to dismiss anything else that’s said, like so:

It is basic. The sun warms the earth’s surface. The surface, by contact, warms the moving, circulating atmosphere. That means the atmosphere cools the surface. How then can the atmosphere warm it? It cannot. That is why their computer models are wrong.

This is a familiar move to anyone who’s ever watched a 9/11 truther at work. While “jet fuel can’t melt steel beams!” has become a punchline, in some ways it’s the perfect battle-cry for epistemic rebellion. It asserts that if you just cling to some basic fact or model, you can use it to reject more complicated scenarios or models that seem to contradict that fact.

Jim Benton/

That move levels the playing field and hands power back to the disputant. Your advanced study of engineering or climatology, be it ever so impressive, can’t override my high school physics or chemistry. My understanding of how physical reality works is simple, graspable, and therefore true; yours is complex, counterintuitive, esoteric, and thus utterly suspect. I’m Plato’s Socrates: earthy, self-sufficient and impervious to sophistry; you, by contrast, are Aristophanes’ Socrates, vain and unworldly, suspended in your balloon far above the healthy common sense of the demos, investing the clouds with your obsessions.

Auxiliary Accusations

This leaves our would-be Socrates with the awkward fact that all those experts still disagree with him. How do you respond in the face of such disconfirmatory data? You could abandon your hypothesis, or you could deploy what Imre Lakatos called an ‘auxiliary hypothesis’ to defend it.

In Roberts’ case, as with many conspiracy theorists, this auxiliary hypothesis takes the form of a scattergun accusation. Climate science isn’t just mistaken, or even just inept, but “fraudulent.” Roberts is quite prepared to accuse thousands of people whose lives he knows nothing about of conscious and systemic corruption rather than admit he might be wrong.

From within Roberts’ rather Manichean worldview, that might seem to make a certain kind of sense: the forces of freedom are fighting an apocalyptic battle against the forces of repression. The enemy is positively evil, with its cooked climate data and insidious agendas and overtaxed bread. There is no need to spare the feelings of a foe so wicked. Those greedy bastards knew exactly what they were doing when they signed up for Socialist Climate Data Manipulation Studies in O-Week.

For anyone who claims to care about the quest for knowledge like Socrates did, the moral recklessness of such an accusation, from someone in such a position of power, should be cause for alarm. And when you’re trying to destroy the reputation of researchers because their message doesn’t suit your free-market pieties, you might just be more Meletus than Socrates.

The ConversationPatrick Stokes, Senior Lecturer in Philosophy, Deakin University

This article was originally published on The Conversation. (Reblogged by permission). Read the original article.


Filed under Reblogs

14 responses to “Senator, You’re No Socrates

  1. bushwalker

    While I’m sympathetic to Roberts’ view, the quote above shows that he doesn’t know that the greenhouse effect in the atmosphere doesn’t work in the same way as in a building called a “greenhouse”. In the latter it occurs by convection but in the atmosphere it occurs via radiation.


  2. Pingback: Australian Academy of Science is officially politicized | Catallaxy Files

  3. Straw man. Dr. Stokes’ article is not about engineering or economics. It is about Roberts’ crazy conspiracy theories, his dismissal of expertise and his preposterous comparison of himself to Socrates and Galileo. These topics are well within Dr. Stokes’ expertise as a professional philosopher.


    • Rafe Champion

      At first sight this is just what the doctor ordered, a clear and thorough treatment of the basic questions provided by a team of experts with the seal of authority from a national academy. Critical reading tells a different story.
      Starting at the end with mitigation strategies, the elephant in the room, nuclear power, did not get a mention. Why not? This is supposed to be a scientific document and nuclear power is a scientifically credible answer to reduce CO2 production. Possibly it was excluded because it is not politically feasible. If that is the case then it is a very sad situation where scientists refrain from telling the truth for political reasons.
      That spirit can we seen to pervade the whole document as soon as seeds of doubt creep in regarding the official narrative which they recite. I came to this just after reading Richard Feynman’s book on the pleasure of finding things our. His most important message in the book is the need to maintain the highest standard of criticism and integrity regarding data which does not fit into your picture.
      He saw a great danger to humanity – the rise of some kind of thought control which would cripple the critical spirit and enable demagogues or corrupt leaders to create new irrational mass movements. He had no idea what that might be, but as long as unscientific and pseudoscientific ideas can proliferate without being challenged by our intellectual leaders then we are on the brink.
      Tim, I invite you to read that pamphlet again in the spirit of Richard Feynman and see if you think it meets the test of treating all the evidence with respect, even when it does not serve the alarmist narrative. In particular, consider the failed predictions of temperatures after 1998, loss of ice, raising sea levels, droughts in SE Australia.


  4. Pingback: Rafe’s Roundup Sept 17 | Catallaxy Files

  5. Rafe Champion

    People will do well to read the transcript of the speech to avoid being misled by the attempt to dismiss Malcolm Roberts as a mere conspiracy theorist. It is apparent from the content of the speech and from the background of the speaker that he has genuine qualifications to contribute to the climate science debate, unlike the lecturer in philosophy

    Liked by 1 person

    • On the contrary, Dr. Stokes is saying that we should listen to the experts on climate science, of which Senator Roberts is not one.


      • There are many reputable scientists who are not alarmed. If you dont know about them you have not been doing critical appraisal. The 97% consensus paper by Cook at al does not show consensus for alsrmism. Try reading it critically.
        The use of the term ‘climate deniers’ demonstrates lack of credibility at the very start of the philosophical lecture.

        Liked by 1 person

      • There is as much evidence for AGW as there is for any scientific theory. Opposition to this theory is more for political than scientific reasons.


      • It depends what you mean by AGW. Nobody disputes that there has been almost one degree of warming over 100 years and hardly anyone disputes the possibility of CO2 contributing.
        But where is the evidence for being alarmed and spending trillions of dollars to increase the cost of power?

        Liked by 1 person

      • Rafe Champion

        Terry Stokes seems to think that all the experts think we need to be alarmed about climate change. That is as false as any theory can be. There are large numbers of scientists who are not alarmed and have spoken up against alarmism. Dr Stokes can learn something from Don Aitkin about the way for non-specialists to comment credibly on this issue.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Tom Atkinson

        “As much evidence for AGW as for any scientific theory”, Tim Harding? Oh yeah? Ok, so where is all that evidence? I have been looking for years. Plenty of evidence for climate change, sure, but that is not the same thing as climate change caused by *man*. Just where is all that evidence?


      • Thermodynamics and Heat & mass transfer are an engineering subjects in which the so-called “climate scientists” have no qualifications or experience. Malcolm Roberts is a qualified engineer and also has under standing of economics from his MBA qualification. Dr Stokes clearly does not understand engineering or economics


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s