I inquire into argument at the system level, exploring the controversy over whether climate scientists should fly. I document participants’ knowledge of a skeptical argument that because scientists fly, they cannot testify credibly about the climate emergency. I show how this argument has been managed by pro-climate action arguers, and how some climate scientists have developed parallel reasoning, articulating a sophisticated case why they will be more effective in the controversy if they fly less. Finally, I review some strategies arguers deploy to use the arguments of others against them. I argue that only by attending to argument-making at the system level can we understand how arguers come to know the resources for argument available in a controversy and to think strategically about how to use them. I call for more work on argument at the system level.

中文翻译：

---

气候科学家应该飞吗？

我在系统层面探讨了争论，探讨了气候科学家是否应该飞行的争议。我记录了参与者对一个怀疑论点的了解，即因为科学家在飞行，他们无法就气候紧急情况提供可信的证词。我展示了支持气候行动的争论者如何处理这个论点，以及一些气候科学家如何发展平行推理，阐明一个复杂的案例，为什么如果他们少飞，他们在争论中会更有效。最后，我回顾了一些争论者使用其他人的论点来反对他们的策略。我认为，只有通过系统层面的论证，我们才能理解论证者如何了解争论中可用的论证资源，并战略性地思考如何使用它们。