In Both Sides Now, author and ethicist Leslie Cannold presents two sides of an argument and then it’s over to you: what do you think is true, and what do you think Cannold really believes?
Today she asks: is the average person capable of telling the difference between the facts and the fiction that proliferate on the internet?
No case: it’s hard as hell. You need to know how academic works are built and verified. Yes case: of course we can! What do you think we are? Children?
No
The argument against doing your own research could begin and end with a list of those who espouse this method for becoming informed about critical issues — a list that begins with anti-vaxxers such as Pete Evans, continues to Greta Thunberg’s attention-seeking nemesis Naomi Seibt, and ends with QAnon, for whom “do your own research” has become a motto.
Expertise is seen as elitist, except when it’s not. Few do their own research to diagnose what ails their car or how to fix it. Almost no one offers to do their own research so they can perform granny’s brain surgery.
Yet when it comes to life and death issues of even greater magnitude — putting the lives and livelihoods of billions at risk — everyone’s an expert. They’ve been surfing the web since lockdown started, you see, and have uncovered “the truth” about climate change (it isn’t real or dangerous), COVID-19 (which joins cancer, autism and HIV/AIDS as a medical condition prevented by swallowing a bleach-like substance available online), the paedophile ring run by Bill and Hillary Clinton, and the “deep state” that ex-president Donald Trump of all people was working to expose.
Conspiracy theories are not new. They are attractive to those perturbed by the randomness of catastrophic events and want to feel in the know and in control. Anxiety and fear drive new adherents that include members of groups that are discriminated against and — because of this — more prone to accept claims that the system is rigged.
As Adrian J Ivakhiv argues, while anti-vaxxers and climate change denialists may urge followers to find out for themselves, what they’re really saying is: “Do your research building on our research. Follow the clues we have laid out for you.” Rather than cite sources that are part of the larger ecology of research, knowledge and theory — as academics do to achieve publication — conspiracy research starts with a random selection of materials and says: “Trust us. Ask the questions we ask and follow us in answering them.”
How to spot the difference? The truth is that it’s hard as hell. You’d need to know a lot about how academic work builds and verifies knowledge and have the emotional wherewithal to avoid motivated reasoning. Most people can’t and shouldn’t be expected to do this, which is fine. But that doesn’t mean they can get to the bottom of complex events and evidence themselves. Instead, they are obliged to accept their own limitations and trust the experts.
Yes
The arrogance of the “no” case is astounding. Trust you? You? The doctors who experimented on twins in the Nazi death camps and the scientists who made disabled kids sick so they could test a new treatment on them, or the ones that turned cells from a black woman with terminal cancer into a cell line without her — or her family’s — knowledge or consent? Or countless other examples of abuse of power and exploitation I could name?
We’ve had a gutful of you — your half-truths and lies about vaccination, for a start. I don’t care that the percentage of kids who suffer serious side effects from them is less than .01%. That’s more than what you told us about when we handed over our babies for the shot. The careful words you deploy reveal only what you think we should know. Like we’re children who can’t understand.
We can understand just fine and, if we don’t, then why don’t you explain it to us, given all your smarts and expertise? And while you’re at it, can you explain why science is the only way of knowing that matters? What’s wrong with intuition, faith and practical experience, other than that these — unlike scientific training — is available to everyone.
You can bang on all you like about conspiracy theories and the state of the world as it is now, but don’t blame us. We don’t run things. You do. We’re just responding to it. If you want us to trust experts, then experts need to become a lot more trustworthy.
Otherwise, what choice do we have but to search for the truth ourselves.
Which side do you think Cannold sits on? And what do you believe? Send your thoughts to letters@crikey.com.au with Both Sides Now in the subject line.
Your first article (at least the first that I read) a few weeks ago as passable. The article of last week deserved a fail and it seems that only Cky would print this slab.
PERHAPS a few notes as to what research is would have been proved to be a useful beginning. *I* would have introduced the topic with Kuhn, T. “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions” that was published almost 60 years ago. It is a small book, as terse as all hell, but fascinating as to how science ACTUALLY proceeds.
Then we cold take a look at some additional research; e.g. the P53 cancer suppression gene. *I* would have concluded with the quip that when in primary school Jupiter had 12 moons. The last count was 79 with 53 named. Only a few years ago the count was 64.
THAT is how science extends itself. The new, peer-reviewed and conformed, REPLACES the former. Religion does NOT “work” that way at all. Ditto for sentimental concepts of “invasion” or whatever etc.
CP Snow’s book “The Two Cultures” deserve a mention here. Mill (JS) would not have anticipated Snow needing to write such a book but the difference between the (Mr Thompson’s phrase) “pig-ignorant” and (Mr Rundle’s) “knowledge class” diverges by the hour. THAT is the problem and a major component to the polarisation of the USA.
As to a “choice” for veracity (duh) it may come as a shock to appreciate that the source is education in the widest sense. Even at the age of 10 it is clear, just by observation, as to the environment of the children. One may determine such by the questions encouraged at home; answers provided in full sentences; a sense of an introduction, middle and end for answer vs the other 90+% of a class. A fair proxy is the number of reasonable” books at home and the use made of them; not high for ON supporters according to some clipboard work.
A thoroughly pitiful, patronising and self-serving article. If such is to become the Cky standard then the objectives of Fray are not going to get to the first base.
I’m impressed with the designation; to wit : from everyday letter-writer : “Facebook-Certified Researcher”
I am 90% for the “No” case, and have 10% sympathy with the “Yes” case. I would suspect that Ms Cannold substantially supports the “No” case, but realises that academia and science are not without their own issues.
She obviously supports the “no” case. The tone is that of a reasonable academic, whereas in the “yes” case she seems to be chanelling a teenager on social media.
No one does RESEARCH on the Internet – they SEARCH the internet.
Research is a disciplined intellectual process -just looking for bits and pieces on the internet is not researching.
20 years ago, I would have been firmly in the Yes! position, but these days I lean towards No (with a caveat).
One great thing about an open knowledge society is the ability to access any information. As long as that’s done with the proper caution, it shouldn’t be difficult to gain knowledge on fields outside your expertise. The proper caution being, of course, understanding what constitutes an expert, and seeking sources that will enhance the expert understanding on a topic. There’s no reason a priori that someone who wants to learn a topic on their own can’t follow the same path and get the same understanding as an expert in that field could. It’s more difficult on your own, but not impossible.
That caveat aside, the reason I lean towards No is that it’s difficult to achieve the above. Either our prejudices will gravitate our sources to answers we find amenable to our existing beliefs, or we’ll be mislead by rogue sources (ideologues pushing an agenda and ignoramus know-it-alls professing to understand something they don’t) masquerading as legitimate information.
agree – a lot of basic science was pioneered by gentlemen scientists in the past – because of costs now it is too expensive for he average individual and it required disciplined approach which is in short supply these days.
Indeed. An initial foundation is a prerequisite for the development of knowledge.
“ Greta Thunberg’s attention-seeking nemesis Naomi Seibt” – glad to see Greta could never be classed as attention seeking.
Unsure about “attention seeking” but undoubtedly manipulated. Her “innocent” remarks will attract more analysts as she gets older.
Calling her ‘manipulated’ is a good example of motivated reasoning.
What would you accept for evidence DB? I wouldn’t recommend what has been offered as science.
As to a little background a friend is undertaking a MEd in the Finnish Education strategy. I was asked to identify some weak points that had been made.
I jotted some remarks as to the need for energy (personal and commercial) for a given standard of living. By now the joining of a few dots ought to be self evident.