Lived Experience and Scientific Knowledge of Climate Change

Abstract

Classically, scientific approaches to knowledge, and specifically that of climate change, proceed through systematic collection and investigation of empirical data to establish patterns, and controlled experimentation to demonstrate the truth or otherwise of generalisations, such as ‘Human beings are mostly responsible for contemporary climate change’. Scientific approaches also reduce phenomena to their constituent parts, and analyse them independently through subject specialisms, or disciplines, before putting them back together again. Through these controlled processes, science claims to be objective, bringing us closer to reality. Lived experience, on the other hand, proceeds largely through dialectics—the debating of opinions. It is clearly subjective, but nevertheless presents complementary realities. This chapter further argues that (1) Science (natural and social) and lived experiences are each partial versions of reality. The former is limited by the epistemological boundaries that are placed around the subject specialisms that discipline us into certain ways of thinking about phenomena. Lived experience is by definition limited by the practice of everyday life. (2) Science also proceeds through challenge by other scientists of interpretation of empirical results, often starting from different premises. This process is not dissimilar to the dialectics that characterise the process of lived experience. (3) Scientific challenge in relation to climate change is often not neutral or benign. It is seized upon politically to attempt to neutralise the power of scientific evidence in climate change policy debates. (4) The institutionalised perception among scientists themselves that their knowledge is superior, however, leads to significant challenges of working together to generate a more holistic approach to climate change, as illustrated by a personal story of one of the authors.