Is climate activism unscientific?

Is it unscientific when a scientist speaks out for the climate? Ömer Gürlesin finds that way of thinking too simplistic. ‘Movements such as Scientist Rebellion show that scientific expertise can go hand in hand with moral urgency.’

Contemporary academic culture increasingly operates under the silent authority of scientism: the assumption that only empirical science produces legitimate knowledge and that moral, spiritual, or normative convictions should remain outside academic work.

While science is indispensable for understanding the world, this reductionist framework risks impoverishing academic life by excluding precisely those dimensions—such as meaning, conviction, and responsibility—that make sustained engagement with urgent global crises, including climate change, possible.

In the context of climate change, this way of thinking leads to a paradox. Despite an overwhelming scientific consensus and an abundance of data, political inertia and societal paralysis persist. The limitation here is not epistemological but motivational in nature. Facts alone do not move societies to act.

To bridge this gap, the academic world must reconsider the concept of the researcher’s identity. Drawing on dialogical self theory, academic identity can be understood as composed of multiple simultaneously present voices, including everyday roles such as that of a parent or a member of a community.

For the academic debate, two voices are particularly relevant. The “I as scientist” focuses on empirical accuracy, transparency, and methodological discipline. The “I as believer” is understood broadly here as the bearer of deeply rooted convictions, ethical commitments, and moral imagination. Faith in this sense is not limited to institutional religion, but also encompasses implicit belief systems that orient action, provide meaning, and sustain long-term engagement.

Movements such as Scientist Rebellion demonstrate that scientific expertise can coexist with moral urgency. Many scientists involved do not act despite their data-driven knowledge, but precisely because this knowledge acquires ethical significance when it is connected to convictions about responsibility, justice, and care for the planet.

Their activism therefore does not arise solely from data, but from the way empirical evidence is interpreted within an implicit moral framework that regards planetary responsibility as a non-negotiable obligation. This framework functions in a structurally similar way to religion. It offers orientation, a sense of duty, and a willingness to bear personal costs for a higher goal.

Acknowledging this dynamic does not undermine scientific integrity. The risk that convictions might override empirical judgment can be limited by maintaining clear methodological boundaries. Transparency, reproducibility, and peer review remain non-negotiable. Moral motivation need not distort empirical findings; on the contrary, it can support sustained engagement and enhance the societal relevance of research.

In the struggle against climate change, the separation between science and moral meaning has proven ineffective. Science tells us what is happening and how; faith, explicit or implicit, explains why it matters and why action is necessary. This dynamic is also visible in a world confronted with ecological disruption, war, racism, discrimination, and populist polarization, where purely empirical knowledge is insufficient to mobilize ethical responsibility and social cohesion.

Challenging scientism is therefore not an attack on science, but a call to restore the human dimension of academic life. By acknowledging the dialogical character of the researcher and making room for deeply rooted convictions, academia can not only produce reliable knowledge, but also contribute to the moral energy needed for collective transformation.

_Advertentie.