To the editor,
I’ve lived in NW Ontario since 1975. I got my undergraduate degree in Hon Physics at the University of Waterloo in 74. Don’t get me wrong that’s not a claim to expertise in all things Physics, far from it. I can claim a good understanding of things I don't know in many areas of Physics.
I was a high school teacher in Red Lake, taught mostly Science, Calculus and Physics. Although I retired 17 years ago, I still love it here.
I have been around long enough to have gone through the phase when MRIs (Magnetic Resonance Images) were known as NMRI (Nuclear Magnetic Resonance Images). The word “Nuclear” was dropped because many folks just responded negatively to the word and would not use something in their best interest.
Good science is often bad politics and good politics is often bad science. I admit I’ve been too interested in science. But politics does make decisions that affect us all. Too many political decisions are based on bad science. Don’t get me wrong I realize most politicians are just trying to make the right decision, but we all fall into confirmation bias, cherry-picking, simplistic slogans and thinking.
I’ve been interested in Science-Phobic Groups. While I was teaching my motto was “What You See, Depends on How You Look.” It was an introduction to how you look scientifically into things. That’s not easy. You have to look very carefully. There are no simple saviours or demons. Anyone with a simple answer is wrong. Yes I realize that is a simple statement.
Many Science-Phobic Groups say “No”. It’s pretty easy to say “No,” especially to single issues. It might be Vaccinations, Nuclear Waste, Wind Turbine Syndrome, Electric Vehicles, Solar Power, or Climate Change. Just to mention a few. My question would be “In this time of uncertainty, “What do you/we say Yes to? “
Politically it’s useful to tie concerns to Motherhood/Apple Pie issues. If you do not say “No” you will lose all the stuff we love (our environment, our kid’s future, and our past). In logic, this is called a “Non-Sequitur” or “It Doesn’t Follow”. But if you can convince folks, that unless you agree with our side, our kids will suffer, you win. Good politics, bad science.
“Weasel” words and phrases like Toxic, Artificial, Scientific Uncertainty, Risk, and Just a Theory, are used. Knowingly or not, these words target the emotions of different groups. Again, this may be good politics but bad science.
There are also statements like “Don’t trust the experts” they’re just in it for themselves.” When I am with a crying baby, I tend to trust the mother who has been caring for the kid for the last bit. When fishing, I tend to trust the person who has been fishing there for most of their life. When I have a problem with my truck, I tend to trust someone who has worked as a mechanic for a while. I tend to trust a medical doctor when I have a medical issue. I tend to trust those who have more experience and education (not just Google) than I do. But I do not ask the mother about her opinion of my vehicle or the mechanic about my health concerns.
Demonizing contrary opinions is common. Conspiracy theories blame the other side often referred to as “they”.
“They” can be political, racial, or religious. It’s common for the “Anti” groups to say you can’t trust the other side while proposing no alternative solutions. This is all too common in politics and leads to what used to be called yellow journalism and the creation of scapegoats. This may make us feel good, but solves nothing.
Understandably, we all fear that which we don’t understand. Let’s face it none of us understand much of the technology that affects our lives. There is a study (Dunning-Kruger effect) which has been misrepresented as “Stupid people often think they are smart”, but we are all “stupid” about many things. As humans, we simply have too much confidence in our opinions about things we don’t know much about. The emotion fear sometimes just doesn’t apply.
Dave Erb
Red Lake
