Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- List of figures
- List of abbreviations
- Preface
- 1 Introduction
- Part I History of the understanding of stratospheric ozone
- Part II Philosophical issues arising from the history
- 9 Prediction in science
- 10 The crucial experiment
- 11 Positive and negative evidence in theory selection
- 12 Branches and sub-branches of science: problems at disciplinary boundaries
- 13 Scientific evidence and powerful computers: new problems for philosophers of science?
- 14 The scientific consensus
- References
- Index
14 - The scientific consensus
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 22 September 2009
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- List of figures
- List of abbreviations
- Preface
- 1 Introduction
- Part I History of the understanding of stratospheric ozone
- Part II Philosophical issues arising from the history
- 9 Prediction in science
- 10 The crucial experiment
- 11 Positive and negative evidence in theory selection
- 12 Branches and sub-branches of science: problems at disciplinary boundaries
- 13 Scientific evidence and powerful computers: new problems for philosophers of science?
- 14 The scientific consensus
- References
- Index
Summary
The only scientific consensus in existence [in 1978] regarded chlorofluorocarbons as a potentially serious, but as yet unconfirmed, danger.
(Weiss, 1993)In the ozone story we have a remarkable record of a series of changes in scientific consensus.
CFCs were initially regarded as the safest and best of chemicals. Then a finger of suspicion was pointed, and their use became a matter of some significant difference of opinion within the scientific community. Finally, some extra evidence came in, and they were slated for a complete phaseout, with the backing of overwhelming scientific opinion.
Molina and Rowland's warning about the possible role of chlorine compounds in stratospheric ozone depletion was initially taken very seriously by scientists. Then, as the evidence was not clearly seen in actual ozone levels, and as refinements of the models started to produce predictions of smaller depletions, the wider scientific community saw the issue less seriously as a problem. (This is not to deny that it was still widely regarded as a potential problem, nor that several groups of scientists continued to work on stratospheric chlorine chemistry.) But when the discovery of the Antarctic ozone hole made its impact, chlorine-mediated ozone depletion came once again to the fore as a significant scientific problem.
When the ozone hole was discovered, there were initially several quite diverse and incompatible attempts at explaining the unexpected phenomenon.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- The Ozone LayerA Philosophy of Science Perspective, pp. 169 - 204Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2001