After reading the introductory material about Idhe this past weekend, I became interested in what other kinds of topics, on a more in-depth level that Idhe explores with his idea of Phenomenology. So, I visited his homepage and came across an article that interested me titled: Whole Earth Measurements . I focused on the first part of the article titled, "How Many Phenomenologists does it take to detect a 'Greenhouse Effect'?" It's a short passage that discusses and debates between the different ways that technology and humans have interpreted and are interpreting pollution, our environment, and raising temperatures due to CFCS and other potentially harmful chemicals.
In this article, Ihde debates between what really is harmful to our earth and what is natural. He debates how we use technology to measure Greenhouse gas and if maybe our calculations are based on faulty math, and maybe we are just not sampling enough data or looking at a big enough picture to come to conclusions.
Read the article and let me know what you think!
P.s. I know you guys have missed me, I've been reallyyyyyy sick :(
A really interesting piece.... makes me rethink some of the common notions that are conveyed about greenhouse gases. I think Ihde and Al Gore would have some magnificent conversations.
ReplyDeletewell of course.
ReplyDeleteplease feel better!
Great find :)
I think that it is good to review what types of processes we draw our conclusion from. I am a little skeptical about the idea of "faulty math," but it it worth looking into. The larger question that is posed is more important though, how does our experience shape those conclusions. If our experience is that we have always been taught that there are certain indicators of a particular phenomenom, then as we grow up and become more aware of our surroundings, we would subconciously highlight there affects in our lives.
ReplyDelete