Language Use That Really Annoys Me #4 - The Definite Article.

Now before I start, let's note one thing: I am no climatologist, nor a climate change believer, nor a denier. I simply do not know enough about the matter and presently do not have the time nor the resources to look into the matter with any degree of thoroughness.* One thing I do believe, however, is that the debate has been tainted by politicisation on both sides, with smears, ad hominems and more effort spent on denouncing the other side than actually arguing for one's own view.

With that in mind though, I still think Jonathon Porritt is a t**t. Why? He is hooked on 'The Definite Article'. Now, the definite article is sometimes useful. 'The Queen' or 'The Prime Minister' or 'The Suspect' or 'The President' or 'The Winner' allows one to emphasise the point because an emphasis is needed. However, when you abuse the definite article, to provide a false emphasis that is not appropriate, then you are abusing language to meet your own ends rather than an objective statement of truth. (Which is a tricky thing at the best of times, as I will mention later on.)

The most egregious example of this is the use of the phrase, 'The Science'. Now, it either is or it isn't science, once one applies the proper scientific method, peer review, falsifiability and so on. Science is science is science unless or until you can demonstrate it's not. But giving it the honorific, 'The Science', is to invest in it a sort of divine writ that has no place in the discussion - unless it is being subordinated to a political end.

Enter Porritt. I once had to sit through a hysterical rant from this awful demagogue as part of an audience of upper middle class university employees and functionaries, who clapped blandly away despite him demanding we all start living like it's World War Two again. (His exact words were 'And we must learn to live under WARTIME conditions!!!') They then left the lecture theatre, drove home in their expensive cars, left all the lights on and didn't even stop to consider minor issues like 'cognitive dissonance'. After all, the real pain would be for poorer, less important people, amirite?

Poritt's eyes blazed and his voice almost shrieked as he mentioned those who dared disagree with him, like a trotskyite denouncing class traitors, or more to the point, a sort of museli-guzzling, ethically sourced Oswald Mosely, elevated to prominence because he talks and thinks like the present sawn-off jobsworth government does.

So no, I was not impressed by Porritt. But I realised how much I couldn't stand him when he started making crazed Tony Blair arm gestures, his eyes now practically leaping out of his sockets, as he proclaimed:

'Al Gore isn't a scientist - BUT HE KNOWS THE SCIENCE!!!'

F**king hell. Where does one begin? It's a bit like declaring that my brother's friend 'isn't a gynaecologist, but by golly, HE KNOWS THE FANNY!!!' It is ultimately meaningless as we all sort of know a bit about climate science, and so the statement is true in a vaguely clumsy and inarticulate way. But again, we see the abuse of the definite article to suggest an authority which is not actually there, except as a sort of implied bien pensant enlightenment.

But there is another danger. If, by using the definite article, you esteem 'the science' as a higher authority then you risk undermining science of any sort when 'the science' is called into question. Writing about the recent e-mail controversy at the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia, George Monbiot said: "No one has been as badly let down by the revelations in these emails as those of us who have championed the science [emphasis mine]. We should be the first to demand that it is unimpeachable, not the last."

And here lies 'the problem': science isn't unimpeachable - unless you think that Gallileo, Copernicus and Darwin were right shits for ruining it for everyone. It was never 'impeachable' either. Rather, it is based on what can be observed and the gradual accumulation of knowledge. Put simply, we know more today than we knew yesterday, which doesn't automatically invalidate what we knew before.

Monbiot, to his credit, has always replied to his opponents rather than dismissing them in a torrent of bile, and he has also been direct in facing up to the UEA kerfuffle**. But his abuse of language weakens his cause in the long run. As said, science is a rational process whereby we explore and study our surroundings. It does not equate to 'truth', which is a very subjective and so difficult creature at the best of times. It tells you if something works, how it works and when it works, but it does not explain WHY it works, because you can't scientifically observe an abstract philosophical concept.

If in esteeming 'the science' as the core pillar of your ideology, you then find it compromised or challenged, then you risk not only being on the side of a 'false god' but also undermining science as a concept overall, especially in the eyes of a public that doesn't know the difference between science and 'the science' in the first place. They may be inclined to see the situation, and so any subsequent warning, as that of the environmentalist that cried wolf, regardless of whether you're right or not. The incorrect use of the definite article may therefore, in this case, prove to be very damaging to everyone's health.

* Having looked into it with that aforementioned thoroughness, I find myself fully in agreement with those who are sounding the alarm. Except Porritt and Gore for reasons given in this article which still stand.
** Which, in the long term, was a storm in a teacup whipped up by the usual suspect denialists.