Every form of the ontological argument that I've ever heard of assumes that greatness is a property of some entity rather than a speaker evaluation of that entity.

I admit that whether the abstract property of greatness exists independently of speakers and their evaluations can be debated philosophically.

But this leaves the ontological argument, even if logically valid, only as sound as the notion that greatness exists independently of the evaluation of some rational being, rather than existing only as such an evaluation.

IMO, my evaluation of X is not a property of X.

I share your doubts about the political will to stall or reverse climate change.

Thanks for telling me about Pierce. :-) Good to know you've got a handle on pragmatism, whichever one of you you are! :-)

"Pragmatism" in philosophy refers to a specific movement, whose champions include William James and John Dewey. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pragmatism/

@ Janus:

one: The term "hard" as in "hard sciences" has no scientific meaning.

two: re: your words: "We cannot establish "facts" in the human sciences which can even "mean confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent." except when it comes to the most general observations."

Oh, BS. Psychologists have arrived at many specific conclusions that have many applications. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Applied_psychology
four: No, you didn't order anyone to shut up. You just tried to stuff the words "shut up" into my mouth. Disingenuous much?

Both means and the characteristics of the agent tend to condition the ends.

one: The availability of the means varies with circumstance. A person whose life might be saved outside a war zone might have to die under combat conditions. Availability of means may also reflect ideological restrictions in the agent's society. Witness the Catholic doctrine on artificial birth control. In a Catholic country, you might find no condoms in the drug store--just ovulation calendars.

Hence the old proverb: "If a hammer is the only tool you've got, pretty soon every problem starts looking like a nail."

two: The tendencies of the agent in this scenario condition the means, which in turn condition the ends. Everybody says they want law and order, but a militaristic dictatorship uses slightly different means to achieve that goal than a moderate representative government. The results tend to contrast, as anyone who has fled a fascist or communist dictatorship knows. Similarly, an aggressive parent will use different means to get compliance from his or her children than a more empathic parent--or a more negligent one.

@ Tim3003: Fair enough. The time and prerequisites for the tipping point are issues for climate scientists. As for the human response to climate change, or the relative lack thereof, I am pessimistic.

Climate change is already flooding the coasts of low-lying countries like Bangladesh. Water is also getting high in Venice, Italy. Most of the hottest years on record occurred in the 21st century. Killer storms are becoming more frequent and severe.

Yet none of the big carbon emitters, including the USA and China, seem to be doing much about this. One reason is that Big Oil can't wait for the Arctic ice to melt and open up the Arctic Ocean floor for oil drilling. Another reason is that the public is being disinformed by Big Oil and Republican noisemakers. Still another reason is the denial that springs from fear. Not many people talk about the fact that our civilization can't sustain itself in its present form. But the popularity of post-apocalyptic fiction, like "The Walking Dead," may be a sign of this fear IMO.

Dismissing the results in the social sciences because they are not "hard" empirical scientists seems ill-considered to me. The reason that sciences like psychology and sociology are not "hard" sciences is because they address many more variables than the study of sub-atomic particles and fundamental forces. That's why there will probably never be anything like Isaac Asimov's fictitious version of "psychohistory."

As for social sciences not being "empirical," this simply isn't true. Social scientists gather and use data all the time.

And since when are empirical findings definitive? Newton, who was arguably the greatest physicist who ever lived, generated a physics that put humans on the Moon, but his findings did not prove to be definitive. Stephen Jay Gould did not admit to any truly definitive scientific conclusions. He wrote "In science, 'fact' can only mean 'confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent.'" To sum this point up, since we can't discount the possibility that new evidence will call an old theory into question, we can't call empirical findings "definitive."

I didn't order anyone to shut up. I simply questioned whether this thread is a philosophical one. Nothing in my post encourages you to stay away from the scientific forums that might serve as better homes for a question regarding the feasibility of slowing down, stopping, or reversing climate change. In the future, please refrain from misrepresenting my posts.

True. But the factors that you mentioned can be addressed in social sciences such as sociology and political science.

It's odd that this question would be posted on a Philosophy forum. Whether human beings can stop--or slow--climate change seems to me to be a straightforwardly scientific or empirical question.

Sociologists and Political scientists may have lots to say about why we humans have done almost nothing in response to the present, unfolding climate crisis.

Philosophers who specialize in ethics may have lots to say about why all people should take climate change seriously.

But original question doesn't address that topic: it asks whether stopping climate change is feasible for humans given the current state of our technology. Shouldn't someone pass this question over to a natural sciences/technology forum?