Does every story have to have two sides?
I read an article recently that got me thinking about how society tends to deal with “controversial” scientific theories like climate change, evolution, or the idea that cigarettes are dangerous.
The article talked about how a school board in Federal Way, Washington (outside of Seattle) imposed a moritorium on showings of An Inconvenient Truth in school unless teachers ensure that a “credible, legitimate opposing view will be presented.”
My guess is that the Federal Way school board isn’t a partisan organization trying to push an anti-climate change agenda. Instead, my guess is that the Federal Way school board just wants this issue to go away. The school showed a movie. A parent complained. The school board really doesn’t want to get involved in any complex decisions so they come up with a compromise. Problem solved. Right?
But what exactly is the meaning of a “credible, legitimate opposing view” to an issue that has broad acceptance in the scientific community?
Here are just a few examples showing the state of the scientific community.
- The National Academy of Scientist’s report starts off with the sentence, “Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth’s atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise.” This is basically the definition of “global warming”.
- The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change released a their Climate Change 2001 report stating that “Human activities have increased the atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases and aerosols since the pre-industrial era” and “There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities.”
- An analysis in Science magazine stated that “all major scientific bodies in the United States whose members’ expertise bears directly on the matter have issued similar statements” to the IPCC.
- The same article in Science magazine was the basis for the following statement in An Inconvenient Truth: “There was a massive study of every scientific article in a peer reviewed article written on global warming in the last ten years. They took a big sample of 10 percent, 928 articles. And you know the number of those that disagreed with the scientific consensus that we’re causing global warming and that is a serious problem out of the 928: Zero.”
With this sort of support, what is a “credible” and “legitimate” opposing view?
Is a single article written by a lobbyist for the energy industry and not subjected to any form of scientific peer review “credible” or “legitimate”?
Which aspect of the school board’s requirement is more important? The “credible” and “legitimate” part? Or the “opposing view” part?
Unfortunately, I think that the school board wanted to wash their hands of this problem and the simplest way to do that was to create the appearance of a debate.
The root of the problem here is that people are constantly looking for “balanced” arguments even when balance isn’t necessarily appropriate. For every issue, we want their to be two equal sides. And we want to give each side the same amount of time to make their case; thus, creating the perception of a balanced debate.
This reminds me of Stephen Jay Gould appearing on TV to debunk “skeptics” making unsubstaniated claims about evolution.
You would have a news program that wanted to do a “tough analysis” on a controversial topic like evolution. On one side, you would have Steven Jay Gould representing the views of thousands of scientists, and decades of research. On the other side, you have someone with an opinion.
Then they would battle it out for a few minutes.
“Nuh uh.” “Uh huh.” “Nuh uh.” “Uh huh.”
Ta da, the news program has performed its civic duty of creating an informed populace.
Just like the school board, the TV program could contend that they did not take any overt position on this “controversial issue”; they presented “both sides” of the issue and left it up to you to decide.
I think the real problem in both of these cases is that is creates a false perception that there are two equal sides in the debate.
In fact, I think in both cases it is a public disservice to present the two sides as equal.
For example, if the school had decided to show Race to the Moon would the school board contend that someone would need to present the opposing view from the fine folks at Moonhoax.com? Of course I am being absurd here, but isn’t that the point? What is the difference between the two topics?
Is it really the job of a school to present both sides and let the students make a decision? We’re not talking about what people “feel” or how they react to a topic. We are talking about a matter of science.
I’m not trying to get all “science is truth” on you. But there is a scientific process for having debate, processing competing ideas, and coming to conclusions.
I’m completely willing to support truly “legitimate, credible opposing views”, but don’t let some schmuck who has an opinion enter the debate on the same level as researched, peer-reviewed scientific literature.
I think it would be a really interesting question to ask the Federal Way school board what they would consider to be a “credible, legitimate opposing view.” Just have them come up with one or two examples. Unfortunately, I bet they don’t really care what the answer is. Just go away and let them get back to their real work which doesn’t have to do with deciding what to teach students.
More Reading:
on January 28th, 2007 at 7:38 am
you ahve no replies to this post which I came accross by cance. you are on the east coast two hours ahead of me. EITHER YOU REACH NO ONE THAT THINKS INDEPENDENTLY OR YOUR ARTICLE IS AS IT SHOULD BE CONSIDERED OBSURD. Yes there is global warming but no man cannot absolutely be shown to be the source of the increase. Thank God for inteligent design.
on January 28th, 2007 at 6:16 pm
Ooooh, oooh. I think independently! And I can spell absurd. Even without the help of the red line that appears under every mis-spelled word in the comment.
I am amazing.
I also think Eric’s point is exactly on target. There are not two sides to every story — and it’s a weird quirk in the American media to imagine there always are. Sometimes there’s two. Sometimes there’s thirteen.
The trouble is, This is an easy problem to identify, a harder one to fix.
Some issues I see right off the top of my head.
First, a number of companies, primarily, took advantage of this tendency and set up junk science institutes to make it look like there really were two sides. The tobacco industry was infamous for this, of course, but, more relevant to the topic at hand, for years Exxon funded the Competitive Enterprise Institute which cranked out scads of crappy opinion pieces all apparently under the aegis of science. Journalists, most of whom have little of no science background, were understandably confused and intimidated.
Over time, though, it should have become clear that this was a front organization, but, this was rarely pointed out, both because the CEI provided what news readers desperately wanted — another side tot he story — and also because modern media, in deference to some weird notion of objectivity, is generally reluctant to do the kind of reporting that would expose a place like CEI.
Another problem is, Confusion over what it means that there are many perspectives. The Historian James Goodman, for instance, has written a book about the horrendous injustice of Scottsboro, reporting the views of many people involved in the events. That doesn’t mean, in the end, there isn’t still only one right, reasonable, and moral way to look at the events. So, people might understand climate change in various ways, have various concerns about it, and about the regulations considered to stop it, and these are worth reporting, but not without context , not by just listing them, and,, as Eric says, essentially pitting an expert on the mater and some guy (or gal) with an opinion.
So, behind the reflexive search for two sides, there’s another nut that needs to be cracked — the media tendency to conflate reporting what various people say — acting as stenographers — and doing real reporting. The problem is journalists are generalists often with little interest in the substantive issues that they cover; they are on deadlines, looking for other people to do the work for them — so, go to the CEI and get a crib-sheet on problems with global warming predictions. Etc.
I think that some of these problems can be addressed. Others, I’m not sure — including the case of the school. we need processes by which parents can complain about what their children are learning. These are slow, and often legalistic. And they can be cluttered up. That’s just the nature of the beast. States can protect schools and districts to an extent — if they are so inclined — but not with everything. Evolution has been a hot topic long enough that states can just say, “We’re teaching it, don’t bother complaining.” But global warming is newer, and there will be newer issues after it. States can’t get involved in each one. Which means that these problems will persist; to the extent that they can be solved means not paying attention to the process at the school level, but doing more general education, which is why I think reforming the American media can help. But, as I say — and as an independent thinker — I figure it’ll be tough to change such tendencies of thought.
on January 28th, 2007 at 6:18 pm
Last link should go here.
on January 30th, 2007 at 1:38 am
I guess there are those who take one-sided arguments a bit too far…
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressRoom.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=32abc0b0-802a-23ad-440a-88824bb8e528
“Cullen’s call for suppressing scientific dissent comes at a time when many skeptical scientists affiliated with Universities have essentially been silenced over fears of loss of tenure and the withdrawal of research grant money. “
on January 30th, 2007 at 3:56 am
Dean,
Who is the person you see as taking one-sided arguments too far? Cullen, it seems, would be well within her right to make that suggestion. After all, one of the duties of professional bodies is to set the boundaries of what counts as knowledge. Biologists, too, have recommended essentially decertifying those who believe in intelligent design — and for good reason.
On the other hand, Imhofe is a crank of the highest order — so if he’s the person to whom you’re referring — well, you’re right.