D. M. Armstrong - Climate Skeptic

Whilst I find his naturalism unconvincing, David Armstrong is an impressive philosopher. He is probably the singularly most influential philosopher that Australia has produced and that is no mean feat. He is one of the few philosophers responsible for the new birth in metaphysics over the last few decades. And his naturalism didn’t prejudice him from a robust engagement with many of the more traditional categories in metaphysics, which one could say, present at least a prima facie difficulty for a worldvew like his. He maintained a thoroughly realist – but naturalized – view of universals and his world was a world of nothing but states of affairs.

Stephen Mumford, in his book on Armstrong’s philosophy, says that he baulked at the prospect of becoming a disciple of his philosophical mentor, John Anderson. Anderson was not unimpressive himself and Armstrong learnt a lot from him, but such was his doggedly independence that he was to be no man’s intellectual servant. Here is an Armstrong quote from Mumford’s book

I am not a natural disciple, and, although I was immensely influenced, I never became one of the loyal circle. This caused Anderson to regard me with suspicion. (15)

Armstrong would have none of the kind of group think that pervades much of the academy today. He was also prominent in opposing the Marxist and Postmodernist takeovers of Sydney University some decades ago. So it doesn’t surprise me that he is also a climate skeptic and at least recognizes the strength of some of the Intelligent Design arguments.

His review of James Franklin’s Science and Its Limits he says this on climate change in parenthesis

(I have just now been reading Ian Plimer’s newly appeared book Heaven + Earth, which seems to show that the case for the global warming hypothesis is very weak indeed.)

And on evolution and ID he says

I had the good fortune some years ago to hear Behe talk, at a symposium on evolution at the University of Notre Dame. I thought at the time that Darwinians were lucky to have such an informed and resourceful critic as Behe. Let the chips fall where they may. I’d myself look for some naturalistic explanation for the whole process of evolution, but let us not regard the case as closed.

In saner times such comments wouldn’t warrant a mention but if one is even slightly acquainted with the extreme dogmatism and group think that confronts proponents of both ID and climate skepticism then such an open position, especially from such a prominent intellectual like Armstrong, is a breath of fresh air. 

(See also his review of John Armstrong's The Meaning of Civilisation)