Movie Night
Philosophy 100
An Inconvenient Truth (2006)
Fall 2012
Danielson
Here are questions you might keep in mind while watching the film. These can be used for discussion the night
of the film, or to answer for those who watch on their own. If you are writing answers because you did not
attend the film, or because you are writing for more extra credit, please answer one or more of the questions
(but no more than 3) with a two-page response. You have until the date of the next film to submit your
responses.
This was a controversial film when it came out. It signified many things. Some saw it as an attempt to rehabilitate
the political career of Vice-President al Gore. Others saw it as a blatant work of propaganda. We show it as an
example of how to apply critical thinking skills. Neil Postman argued that the skills of the manipulators using audio
/ visual techniques require that citizens today develop additional skills to combat, what Bertrand Russell called, the
“seductions of eloquence.” What Postman, and Russell, meant is that while we have tools to evaluate written
arguments, we need to develop skills to evaluate presentations of arguments which tug even more powerfully at
our emotions because they combine music and images. (Please read the article at the end before watching the
film.)
Here’s a link to an online version of the film. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8847562857479496579
1.
There are a couple approaches we can take to evaluate the film. First there is the examination of the
argument Gore presents. Second, we can place the film in a broader context and ask questions about the
social and political environment in which the film was made. Third, we can ask who the intended audience
was and ponder how successful his efforts were. Which is the most important perspective to hold? What
are other ways to consider how we evaluate the meaning of the film?
2.
How do we decide who is more accurate and believable regarding scientific explanations? When scientists
disagree how do we reasonably decide issues?
3.
In the modern world of journalism, there is a belief that every story has two sides. (Obviously the
reduction to only two is often problematic.) Thus, when there is a scientific conclusion, journalists try to
find scientists who refute the conclusion. What might be the motivation by those disagreeing with the
consensus of scientists?
4.
How well does this documentary, which won the best documentary academy award in 2007, present its
case? If this was all you knew of the issue, would you be convinced? Why?
5.
The film was reviled by many of Al Gore’s political foes, and claimed that it was merely a veiled attempt to
resurrect his political dreams of running for president after the 2000 election. If he was using the film this
way, is it a legitimate criticism of the film?
6.
The main argument Gore makes can be highlighted by asking a series of questions.
a) Is the earth heating up?
- If it’s not warming, then we don’t have to worry.
- If it is warming, then we should find out the cause. (Question b.)
b) What is the cause of the heating?
- If it’s a result of natural processes, then there may not be much we can do.
- If it’s caused by human agency, then we should stop doing the things which are causing the
temperatures to rise and also act to reduce the heating.
c) How do we balance our response?
- If we can make changes which don’t harm the economy, then we should do them.
- If we need to make changes which hurt the economy, how do we balance the harms?
7.
What are the risks if Gore’s analysis is incorrect? What are the risks if he is correct?
8.
Critics of the film, and the idea of Global warming, have tried several methods to advance their ideas. One
such method comes from Frank Luntz, an amazing wordsmith, who has helped many conservatives to,
among other things, change the name “Global Warming” to the phrase “Climate Change.” Luntz argues
that “Climate Change” is better than “Global Warming” because if the earth is warming it is an example of
Climate Change. Do you think the phrase “Climate Change” is equivalent to “Global Warming?” Why
would Luntz want to change the name? (There are many more such phrases Luntz has introduced in our
society – he changed “Estate Tax” to “Death Tax.” He is profiled in the PBS documentary “The
Persuaders.”) What effect does this change of terms have on people?
9.
People who try to persuade others have many tools at their disposal. They can use well-reasoned
arguments and appeal to people’s rational capacities. They can threaten people using techniques which
evoke fear in the minds of the listeners. They can also seem to be arguing rationally but use techniques,
called fallacies, which appear to be good arguments when in fact the premises don’t lead to the
conclusion. They might also mix these techniques together for their overall presentation. What do you
think Gore is using with this film? What makes you think so? (Provide examples.)
10. The film was funded by the Skoll Foundation. The Skoll Foundation was founded by Jeff Skoll who was the
first president of eBay where he made his money. “Jeff founded Participant Media in 2004 with the belief
that a story well told has the power to inspire and compel social change. Participant’s films are
accompanied by social action and advocacy campaigns to engage people on the issues addressed in the
films. Jeff has served as Executive Producer on 33 films as of May 4, 2012, which have collectively received
a total of 5 Academy Awards® and 22 nominations. Participant’s films include, among others, Good Night,
and Good Luck, North Country, Syriana, An Inconvenient Truth, The Kite Runner, Charlie Wilson’s War, The
Visitor, The Informant!, The Soloist, The Cove, Countdown to Zero, Waiting for ‘Superman’ and Food, Inc..”
Does the fact that the film was supported by such a foundation change your evaluation of its impact? Why
or why not?
11. Gore calls Global Warming a moral crisis which many people in politics ignore. He says it’s not so much a
political issue as a moral issue. Are your convinced by his claim and how he frames that idea in the film?
Why or why not?
12. Gore uses a crane to show the projected temperature increases in the future. Is it merely a rhetorical
device to make his point - a persuasive image to win people over? Evaluate the power of that bit of
stagecraft as a tool which might persuade people merely because of its dramatic effect.
13. Gore says that his son’s accident changed him. He says he dedicated his life to doing good acts. How
important is that story to the film’s persuasive power?
14. Gore uses his sister’s death from lung cancer as a metaphor for global warming. How convincing is his
argument by analogy?
15. Gore cites a document, The Global Climate Science Communications Plan 1998 which revealed that
there are interests that have purposely tried to confuse the average American’s view of global warming
and “reposition Global Warming as ‘theory’ rather than fact.” He then compares this message regarding
Global Warming to that of the tobacco companies’ attempts to make tobacco look more benign than it is.
Tobacco companies felt that, “Doubt is our product because it is the best means of creating controversy.”
Gore then cites how the scientific articles were unanimous on citing human activity as the cause of global
warming, while in the press, of the 636 articles written during a specific time period, 53% showed that the
cause of global warming was in doubt. If Gore’s data is a true presentation of the facts, do you think it
should change people’s perspective on Global Warming? Why or why not?
16. If you agree with Gore’s analysis, what evidence or argument would make you switch to no longer
agreeing with him? If you disagree with his analysis that it is humans who are to cause for Global
Warming, what evidence or argument would change your mind? (Regardless of which side you are on, it is
incumbent on you to know what would make you change your mind.)
17. Gore claims that scientists have an independent obligation to respect and present the truth as they see it.
Does this rise to the level of a moral imperative or duty? Why?
18. Gore ends the film with a challenge to us. He says we have the information and the ability to face the long
term possible consequences and resolve it. He uses the two photos of the earth, one up close and the one
taken from 4 billion miles away – a pale blue dot. He says it’s a moral issue we MUST face. Are you
convinced?
19. Philosophers use the strategy of “What if?” as a way to examine alternative possibilities. Rather than
merely accepting an answer, they ask questions to imagine alternatives and then assess them. Gore uses
that idea to create a thought problem – what will future generations think about us if, knowing what we
know now, we did nothing to respond to the situation. Is that a legitimate approach to the question?
20. Naomi Klein argues in her TED talk, Addicted to Risk, that we are in danger of causing unparalleled
ecological disaster because we do not adopt the “Precautionary Principle” as a tool. Do you agree with
her analysis? Why? Why not?
21. The people who advocate or agree with the ‘Precautionary Principle’ argue, in general, that we ought to
act slowly when introducing some new idea or product into society in order to not create chaos. These
same people, however, also often advocate changes in culture/society like allowing gay marriage. This is a
change which may have consequences. Why do you think they are advocating a slow approach with some
change and a much faster change on other ideas? Is their position contradictory? Why? Why not?
22. People who are opposed to the idea of human agency as a cause of Global Warming are most often selfidentified as conservative. Kirk’s Ten Principles of Conservatism include ideas like the following from the
4th principle regarding Prudence “Any public measure ought to be judged by its probable long-run
consequences, not merely by temporary advantage or popularity.” Could this idea be used to support the
idea that we ought to make the kinds of changes that Gore advocates?
23. Using the article “Breaking Up the Echo”, explore how the film may not effective to convince people who
already disagree with the idea of Global Warming while at the same time it may further entrench those
who do already believe that human activity is causing Global Warming. How does the article help explain
the resistance to the science as well as how it may lead some people to uncritically accept anything which
comes from the scientific community?
This is the article to read before watching the film. Thanks
Breaking Up the Echo
By CASS R. SUNSTEIN
Published: September 17, 2012
.
Enlarge This Image
IT is well known that when like-minded people get together, they tend to end up thinking a more extreme version
of what they thought before they started to talk. The same kind of echo-chamber effect can happen as people get
news from various media. Liberals viewing MSNBC or reading left-of-center blogs may well end up embracing
liberal talking points even more firmly; conservative fans of Fox News may well react in similar fashion on the right.
The result can be a situation in which beliefs do not merely harden but migrate toward the extreme ends of the
political spectrum. As current events in the Middle East demonstrate, discussions among like-minded people can
ultimately produce violence.
The remedy for easing such polarization, here and abroad, may seem straightforward: provide balanced
information to people of all sides. Surely, we might speculate, such information will correct falsehoods and
promote mutual understanding. This, of course, has been a hope of countless dedicated journalists and public
officials.
Unfortunately, evidence suggests that balanced presentations — in which competing arguments or positions are
laid out side by side — may not help. At least when people begin with firmly held convictions, such an approach is
likely to increase polarization rather than reduce it.
Indeed, that’s what a number of academic studies done over the last three decades have found. Such studies
typically proceed in three stages. First, the experimenters assemble a group of people who have clear views on
some controversial issue (such as capital punishment or sexual orientation). Second, the study subjects are
provided with plausible arguments on both sides of the issue. And finally, the researchers test how attitudes have
shifted as a result of exposure to balanced presentations.
You might expect that people’s views would soften and that divisions between groups would get smaller. That is
not what usually happens. On the contrary, people’s original beliefs tend to harden and the original divisions
typically get bigger. Balanced presentations can fuel unbalanced views.
What explains this? The answer is called “biased assimilation,” which means that people assimilate new
information in a selective fashion. When people get information that supports what they initially thought, they
give it considerable weight. When they get information that undermines their initial beliefs, they tend to dismiss it.
In this light, it is understandable that when people begin with opposing initial beliefs on, say, the death penalty,
balanced information can heighten their initial disagreement. Those who tend to favor capital punishment credit
the information that supports their original view and dismiss the opposing information. The same happens on the
other side. As a result, divisions widen.
This natural human tendency explains why it’s so hard to dislodge false rumors and factual errors. Corrections can
even be self-defeating, leading people to stronger commitment to their erroneous beliefs.
A few years ago, for example, both liberals and conservatives were provided with correct and apparently credible
information showing that the George W. Bush administration was wrong to think that Iraq had an active
unconventional weapons program. After receiving the correct information, conservatives became even more likely
to believe that Iraq had such weapons and was seeking to develop more.
The news here is not encouraging. In the face of entrenched social divisions, there’s a risk that presentations that
carefully explore both sides will be counterproductive. And when a group, responding to false information,
becomes more strident, efforts to correct the record may make things worse.
Can anything be done? There is no simple term for the answer, so let’s make one up: surprising validators.
People tend to dismiss information that would falsify their convictions. But they may reconsider if the information
comes from a source they cannot dismiss. People are most likely to find a source credible if they closely identify
with it or begin in essential agreement with it. In such cases, their reaction is not, “how predictable and
uninformative that someone like that would think something so evil and foolish,” but instead, “if someone like that
disagrees with me, maybe I had better rethink.”
Our initial convictions are more apt to be shaken if it’s not easy to dismiss the source as biased, confused, selfinterested or simply mistaken. This is one reason that seemingly irrelevant characteristics, like appearance, or taste
in food and drink, can have a big impact on credibility. Such characteristics can suggest that the validators are in
fact surprising — that they are “like” the people to whom they are speaking.
It follows that turncoats, real or apparent, can be immensely persuasive. If civil rights leaders oppose affirmative
action, or if well-known climate change skeptics say that they were wrong, people are more likely to change their
views.
Here, then, is a lesson for all those who provide information. What matters most may be not what is said, but who,
exactly, is saying it.
Cass R. Sunstein, a law professor at Harvard and the author of “Going to Extremes: How Like Minds Unite and
Divide,” was until last month the administrator of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs.