Progress

watched this TED video (see below) because I was intrigued by what New Yorker journalist Michael Specter meant by “science denial”. Much as I like reading books written by good journalists because they usually know how to write, I like seeing talks from good journalists because they are usually well versed in critical thinking – they never simply accept what they’re told.

But while I watched him talk about our distrust of authority, government and big business leading to fear of vaccines, GE food and more, I found a battle going on inside me. While my head nodded as he promoted asking questions and demanding proof when it comes to scientific progress, but then being prepared to accept it if that proof was then provided, a voice at the back of my head was screaming about how science can’t prove or disprove everything, and just because science can’t prove it, doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. I mean, I’ve stopped listening to the number of studies coming out to do with which foods cause/prevent cancer because it seems like what’s good for you one day can kill you the next.

On the flipside, I totally agree that we aren’t as scared about some of the diseases we have “vanquished” because nobody we know experiences them any more, and that makes it easier to refuse to vaccinate.

But maybe, alongside science, we have also started to develop more of an understanding of what different ingredients do to our bodies and how we can use more natural methods to make ourselves better.

This tit for tat discussion with myself – and yes I’m aware how that may sound – carried on for the entire 19 minutes of Specter’s talk and there was no winner.

Have we really turned against the scientific progress that just decades ago we thought was so amazing? Or just got a bit more savvy about hidden consequences? How much do we need to take the effect our choices could have on the wider society into consideration when we make them? Or is the problem that we still see science and nature as two opposing sides that cannot live in the same space?

There never will be a winner in this argument, so perhaps we should stop looking for one. The problem as I see it, is that too many people on either side of this debate are not willing to listen to what other people have to say. I mean really listen. Which means being prepared to admit that some of what they’re saying might have merit, and understanding that just because you disagree on some points doesn’t mean you have to disagree on everything.

In effect, I believe a lot of people are not making conscious choices, they’re picking a side and sticking to it, no matter what. And part of that approach is that anyone who isn’t with them, is therefore against them. And dead wrong.

Does that sound familiar or what?

...