Short op-ed here.
Editor
David Boonin (Colorado)Advisory Board
Felicia Nimue Ackerman (Brown)
Neera Badhwar (Oklahoma)
Francis Beckwith (Baylor)
David Benatar (Cape Town)
Elizabeth Brake (Arizona State)
John Corvino (Wayne State)
Robert George (Princeton)
Lori Gruen (Wesleyan)
Dale Jamieson (NYU)
Christopher Kaczor (Loyola Marymount)
Eva Feder Kittay (Stony Brook)
Eric Mack (Tulane)
Elinor Mason (Edinburgh)
Jan Narveson (Waterloo)
Tommie Shelby (Harvard)
Nancy Sherman (Georgetown)
Saul Smilansky (Haifa)
Bonnie Steinbock (SUNY Albany)
Heather Widdows (Birmingham)Partner Journals
note for contributors
Information about submitting material to What's Wrong? can be found here.search this site
-
follow us on facebook
This article takes a refreshing view on the issue of climate change by focusing on the application of philosophical and psychological principles as opposed to political science. I believe the author’s statement that initial skeptics could still recognize the objective probabilities of climate change without renouncing the initial skepticism is a helpful thought to cause change in an era where changing one’s mind is seen as spinelessness. However, I believe instilling value in an informed change of opinion would do greater good, as it would allow for more informed discourse of a broader range of topics, especially in a political setting.
LikeLike