Week 3 Lesson.html

Now that the topic of: 'What is a disaster?' has been somewhat defined, now the question becomes: How do we interpret that? As it turns out, there is no shortage of perspectives to choose from. This is the academic process. A writer posits a perspective based on his/her studies and research, and then invites critique. Some back-and-forth commonly ensues, after which the parties agree, agree to disagree, or often just vehemently disagree. As long as there is disagreement, then the discussion will go on.

One example of scientific agreement where the issues have been pretty much resolved is from the field of 'hard science', where the question is whether mankind is causing global warming–science has concluded that the answer is a resounding 'yes'. Note that doesn't mean that the public and politicians are on board–it only means that science has developed a conclusion that has been overwhelmingly accepted by the field of science.

One example of disagreement would be in the field of 'social science', where the question is what to do about global warming. Assessments range from 'nothing' to 'completely divest of fossil fuel use' and everything in between. Perspective is important here–the preferred solution varies greatly depending on whether the theoretical foundation is 'individual responsibility' or 'collective action'. This fundamental disagreement will eventually be resolved, but it will be a long, drawn-out process.