“Hearing ‘both sides’ of an issue makes sense when debating politics in a two-party system, but there’s a problem when that framework is applied to science. When a scientific question is unanswered, there may be three, four, or a dozen competing hypotheses, which are then investigated through research…Research produces evidence, which in time may settle the question…After that point, there are no “sides.” There is simply accepted scientific knowledge. There may still be questions that remain unanswered—to which scientists then turn their attention—but for the question that has been answered, there is simply the consensus of expert opinion on that particular matter. That is what scientific knowledge is.” (Page 268) – Naomi Oreskes & Erik M. Conway, Merchants of Doubt
Merchants
of Doubt illustrates the value of knowing the historical perspective in which
debates are being framed. Ideally, we know history to understand the landscape
of the present, as well as a means of avoiding past mistakes, if humans are
indeed capable of learning from our mistakes. The text was dense and detailed,
but the authors lay out compelling evidence to illustrate how doubt of
scientific consensus has undermined timely action to protect human and/or
environmental health. This seems like a
must read.
One of the struggles I had while reading
this book was about the potential for bias. It was clear to me early on that my
conservative friends and/or family members, no matter how interested in these
issues, would not be interested in reading Merchants
of Doubt. The book is a clear indictment of blind & absolute faith of
the free market, a view held by some conservatives, which appeared to influence
the motivation of scientific “experts” (who although experts in some fields
were not experts in all the fields they appeared to meddle), which led to
either complete loss of perspective or outright lying. Conservative administrations and politicians
are the ones that are directly implicated in generating doubt where the
scientific reality is much more certain. Does the implication of the “conservatives”
make the book biased? In the end, I concluded that the authors were objective—they
provide persuasive evidence (with sometimes exhausting detail) that key players
intentionally misled the public and waged a scientific battle outside of
science, which led to political inaction and public confusion over the real
state of knowledge. The approach of the
doubt-mongers, which started in the 1950s, has also provided enough examples
and enough time to show that in each of these cases that the doubt they sowed
was in fact unjustified—not a seed that should have grown & flourished, but
actually a stone. So while I do not expect conservatives to like this book, I
wonder if it can be countered with evidence that can withstand honest scrutiny.
This book reframed for me why these
false scientific debates, funded ultimately by industry, take root in
society. The book suggests that it’s not
only personal financial gain for the business people, politicians, and the few
scientists involved--although money is clearly there at the root of the issue—but
also the idea that anything less than full free market support is the first
step to the slippery slope of Socialism (arguably, in this country, the path to
Socialism would be an uphill battle—not an easy slide). I grew up in a very
conservative household, arguably “hawkish” in the words of Oreskes &
Conway, so I can kind of understand that concern, even if I do not consider it
particularly rational. What I cannot
understand is how scientists, many of whom had been accomplished in their field
of expertise, could pose as experts in other disciplines where they were
clearly not and (or) then mislead or confuse the public about the state of
knowledge—simply because they disagreed with the obvious implications of the
data (which may mean warning labels on cigarettes, limited public smoking,
regulations on emissions). We cannot
have the correct conversations as a society if people are actively working to
misrepresent the science—doing so seems criminal.
A true conservative approach would be one that
ensured that the natural resources and biodiversity of the planet would be
preserved for “the greatest good to the greatest number of people for the
longest time,” in the words of Gifford Pinchot. Applying skepticism without
perspective—by a failure to account for the available data—is not the path to a
free society, but it is a very dark path and one that we cannot afford to
travel. In any case, we should all be carrying our flashlights.
No comments:
Post a Comment