The conclusion of It Ain’t Necessarily So has left me feeling exasperated over our general agreement with all scientific data. As soon as we see numbers, statistics, percentages, bar graphs, and charts, we hand over our trust to the source that is arguing whatever claim it may be making. I’m not sure how and why, but somewhere in time, our culture evolved into one of numbers. We rarely challenge findings that are represented in numerical form, yet we are so quick to criticize “subjective” research and interpretation.
As cited in the conclusion of IANS, James Fallows stated that “Most . . . journalists . . . share the crucial . . . belief that the truth lies in things that can be measured.” All of the case studies the text has presented support this idea. We’ve read about how surveys can be misconstrued to alter research findings and we’ve seen how other scientific data can be ignored when a reporter develops “hedgehog” tunnel vision, pushing aside contradictory or additional explanatory data when one interpretation has already been accepted. The authors of IANS then go on to provide even more concrete evidence of how society has adopted science as the sole truth of any and all things that can be studied. They cite, for example, Bill Clinton’s validation of exhuming a Vietnam veteran’s remains: “It was the right course of action because science has given us a chance to restore his name. . .” Why do we give so much credit to science? What can we make of it?
There is most definitely a place for scientific research and data in our world. We need it. We rely on it. We live by and according to it. Still, I think we must open our minds and reconsider other options of “truth.” We have drastically underestimated the power of the truths (notice the multiplicity) found in feeling and opinion.
I am reminded of my introductory philosophy class that I took last fall. My favorite essay that we examined in class was “Dismantling Truth: Solidarity versus Objectivity” by comparative literature scholar Richard Rorty. Rorty argues that truth need not be proven, that the “Truth is ‘out there’ waiting for human beings to arrive at it.” To Rorty and other pragmatists, truth is subjective, and whatever belief makes your life and understanding of the world at large easier is the belief to which you should subscribe.
There are arguments against Rorty, of course, such as those made by Margarita Levin, who argues that truth is “independent of bias, tradition, or other influences.” As an example, Margarita explains that regardless of a subjective belief, we could not abandon all scientific truths. We know, as a fact, that AIDS is currently an incurable disease. A person could not simply “believe” his or her way to recovery and then be cured.
I realize that Rorty’s opinion of truth may be a bit extreme, but I think it applies to many of the topics covered in news, specifically to the social sciences, which are inherently subjective. To make the most of research findings and those oh-so-impressive statistics, I suggest you absorb them with a sense of subjectivity. Consider science and how its supposed objectivity can be shifted when interpreted by a researcher. Think of proxies, and the questions of definition that arise when first compiling a study. Remember the errors that can occur in surveys when people are asked misleading questions. Science itself may be foolproof and objective, but our own misinterpretations can lead us to false conclusions and “truths.”