Of course, the paucity of considered and calm debate on social media is not just because those who are more knowledgeable on a subject are less likely to engage, for there are many issues on which the informed and the uninformed obviously do battle. But, because it is a part of human nature, confirmation bias is just as likely to afflict both sides—even if one side is objectively more ‘right’. We are probably all guilty of this, however well-informed we think we are.
I have little doubt that the climate is changing rapidly and that this is due to humankind’s actions; and I am confident that if we don’t all work together to change the way we live our lives, then the future of humanity is in peril. I base my view on overwhelming and incontrovertible scientific evidence that comes from many different areas of science: climate data, oceanography, atmospheric science, biodiversity, computer modelling and so on. Imagine being dissatisfied with the prognosis of your doctor and not just seeking a second opinion from another qualified physician, but getting a third, fourth and fifth opinion, with all of them telling you the same thing, all backed up by irrefutable supporting evidence, such as blood tests, scans and X-rays. That is why I hold the view I do about climate change.
But ma
We all know someone who subscribes to a particular conspiracy theory, whether they are driven by political ideology or were just innocently watching YouTube videos and got sucked in. But conspiracy theories are as old as human civilization itself; for as long as the powerless and disenchanted have resented being kept in the dark, they have speculated about matters they do not comprehend. Though they may truly have been lied to and deceived, it is just as likely that their theories are completely unfounded. And this is not to say that anyone who believes a particular conspiracy theory is simply not smart enough to see through it. Many intelligent and otherwise well-informed people may have valid reasons for believing in something that is not true, whether it’s because of a legitimate distrust of authority based on some past experience or simply because they don’t have access to all the facts. In this case, it does no good telling them they are wrong because they are not clever enough to see the truth. They will feel exactly the same way about you.
Today we are exposed to twenty-four-hour breaking news and an exponential rise in the amount of produced and consumed information. As the number of different issues that form our collective public discourse continues to increase, the amount of time and attention we are able to devote to each one inevitably gets compressed. It isn’t that our total engagement with all this information is any less, but rather that as the information competing for our attention becomes denser our attention gets spread more thinly, with the result that public debate becomes increasingly fragmented and superficial. The more quickly we switch between topics, the more quickly we lose interest in the previous one. We then find ourselves increasingly engaging only with those subjects that interest us, leading us to become less broadly informed—and potentially less confident in evaluating information outside of the spheres with which we are most familiar.
We don’t all need to be Einsteins or even physicists to appreciate how light behaves or to understand something profound about the nature of space and time, in just the same way we don’t need to have studied vaccinology to understand that getting a flu jab will protect us. We can stand on the shoulders of giants, lean on the strengths and knowledge of others who have put in the years to gain expertise that can then be shared with the rest of us. So, even if we encounter something we don’t understand right away, we can still make an effort and take some time to try. Sometimes it is for no better reason than to expand our minds; sometimes it can help us make a decision that will benefit us in our daily lives. Either way, we are the richer for it.
Enlightenment is almost always preferable to ignorance. If you’re unshackled from your chains, take that opportunity to step outside of the cave and into the light of the Sun.
Poets say science takes away from the beauty of stars—mere globs of gas atoms. Nothing is ‘mere’. I too see the stars on a desert night and feel them. But do I see less or more? … What is the pattern, or the meaning, or the why? It does not do harm to the mystery to know a little more about it. For far more marvellous is the truth than any artists of the past imagined it. Why do the poets of the present not speak of it?
We are currently living in an age of soundbites, slogans and instant access to news and information, which has coincided with a move towards more-strident and uncompromising opinions. Society is becoming increasingly ideologically polarised, with complex issues that require open debate and thoughtful analysis being reduced to black or white. All shade is lost, leaving just two opposing views, with the antagonists unwavering in their certainty that they are right. In fact, anyone daring to highlight that an issue is more complicated than either side wishes to admit can find themselves attacked by both sides—if you’re not 100 percent with me then you are against me.
The real world is messy and often far too complicated to simplify. There is a well-known joke—to physicists, at any rate—about a dairy farmer who wishes to find a way of increasing the milk production of his cows and so seeks the help of a team of theoretical physicists. After carefully studying the problem, the physicists finally tell him they have found a solution, but that it only works if they assume a spherical cow in a vacuum.
Not everything can be made simpler.
In science, an explanation that has survived the scrutiny of the scientific method can become an established fact about the world, adding to our cumulative scientific knowledge … and that fact is not going to change. Let me give you my favourite example from physics. Galileo came up with a formula that allowed him to calculate how quickly an object falls when dropped. But his formula was more than ‘just a theory’. We still use it over four centuries later because we know it to be true. If I drop a ball from a height of five metres, it will fall for one second7 before it hits the ground—not two seconds or half a second, but one second. This is an established, absolute truth about the world that is never going to change.