The last ten years has seen a polarisation of political views on many issues. Social media emphasizes that divide. On Twitter, it is so much easier and more satisfying to signal your allegiance to your tribe, instead of discussing disagreements and trying to understand the opposite viewpoint. Glib, over-simplified tweets which misrepresent your opponent will gain likes and retweets galore. Nuanced defence of those in the other camp will get you unfollowed, ostracised, or maybe harassed.
But is it any wonder? Yes, in many ways humans are much, much better off these days than we ever have been. Global infant mortality has plummeted, for example. But our gaze takes in more, so we see more of what's wrong with the world. And some of the problems we face really are huge, and seem intractable. Anyone losing sleep over climate change is, I think, not over-reacting.
If there were easy, obvious answers to any of the political problems we squabble over, we wouldn't be squabbling over them. I think Brexit was a terrible idea, but the European Union does have serious flaws. We need to drastically cut GHG emissions, but poor countries desperately need development and that will necessarily push theirs up.
So maybe we can't expect (and maybe we shouldn't want) to agree on the best policies, but we should be able to agree on facts. After all, if we can't agree on facts, on what basis can we discuss policies? To avoid serious global warming, some will want to focus on technologies and some on consumption, but those who don't accept that it's happening at all - well, what constructive dialogue can happen there?
Science should be common ground between people on the right and the left (and the centre, which funnily enough is not the common ground). We need this, we need trustworthy scientists whose duty is to discovering the truth. Of course nothing in science is the last word, of course everything should be open to question and further testing. But scientific consensus should be our best bet when looking for the most accurate account of reality. And experts who choose to be public communicators should communicate this consensus, honestly, which means putting it in fair context so that they have done their best to avoid misleading the public.
On Twitter I regularly see scientists doing the opposite. Presenting biology, for example, in a skewed and cherry-picked way, because that account better supports their political views. I think that when scientists and other experts do this, they are helping to destroy any hope we have of constructive, amicable politics. Because they are taking away the common ground of science, and fact.
If you ever feel like you have to misrepresent scientific fact, perhaps by carefully showing part of the story but not all, or placing it out of context, or bamboozling people with obfuscating detail so they don't notice when you finish with a non-sequitur, stop. Ask yourself why. If you know and understand the science, and yet hold the opinion you have, why don't you explain *your* reason for holding that opinion, despite the science you think undermines it? Who knows, maybe that reason will sway your audience. They are of course entitled to make up their own minds, based on the evidence. And if you are an expert, you have no right, at all, to abuse that position by tricking them into agreeing with you on false pretences.
No comments:
Post a Comment