Serhan Calba
@serhancalba
YÜKSEK LİSANS
241 reader point
Joined on October 2017
Şu anda okuduğu kitaplar
Okuma Hedefleri
We must stand up for reality, for truth. We must learn good judgement, develop our analytical skills, help our loved ones do the same, and expect the same of our leaders. We must all … well … think more scientifically. This is how we can better understand and withstand the challenges that the real world throws at us and make better decisions in our lives. This is how we can also stand up for the reality that we want for ourselves and others—a world in which we are no longer prisoners, chasing shadows in the dark, but are freer and more enlightened.
There will always be those who mistrust any attempts to filter the truth from the lies. In a sense, this is unavoidable. It is not admitting defeat, but simply facing up to reality. We cannot hope to persuade and convince everyone—but we do have a responsibility as a society to try to ensure that no one intent on spreading lies and misinformation for their own nefarious ends ever gets to be in a position of influence, since this can have far-reaching consequences and potentially alter the future course of humanity. Throughout history, there have been despotic rulers, unpleasant political leaders and false prophets who through force, coercion and lies have convinced millions to follow them. Such people will always be with us.
“Consistency is the last refuge of the unimaginative.” Breaking free of our desire for consistency and certainty is not always easy to do—and that goes for anyone—so it’s helpful to break things down. Shake off your sense of surety. It may be uncomfortable at first, but you will adjust and actually find yourself more uncomfortable with those who profess certainty at all times. Listen to the views and arguments of the ‘other side’ with patience. Ask questions. Take time to find and understand evidence from reliable sources. Be wary of certainty, but let those who are open about (and better yet, can quantify) their own uncertainties earn your confidence. “Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd,” Voltaire once said. And remember: if you are wrong, be brave, be noble, and admit it—and value others who have the courage and integrity to do the same.
Reader Follow Recommendations
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.
Sometimes it is easy to see why a person, group or organisation holds a particular view, for they may have a particular motive or vested interest. For example, if a representative of the tobacco industry tells you that smoking is not really harmful and that the health risks are exaggerated, then you should rightly dismiss what they say. After all, they would say that, wouldn’t they? But all too often people mistakenly apply this same reasoning when they don’t need to. For example, if a climatologist says that Earth’s climate is changing rapidly and that we need to modify our lifestyles to prevent catastrophic consequences, a climate change denier will often counter with, “Well, of course they would say that.… They’re in the pay of ‘x’ ” (where ‘x’ could be an environmental group or green energy company, or just perceived liberal academia).
I am not denying that in certain cases this cynicism may be justified, for we can all think of examples of research that is funded for ideologically driven or profit-driven motives. And we must also be wary of so-called data dredging—also known as ‘p-hacking’—whereby analysis of data is misused deliberately in order to find something that can be presented as statistically significant, then only reporting those cherry-picked conclusions
Even while we find ourselves in a postmodern world of cultural relativism, the internet, and social media in particular, is driving society towards ever-increasing polarisation of opinions on all manner of cultural and political issues, and we are expected to pick sides, with each one making a claim on the ‘truth’. When a blatantly untrue assertion, motivated by a particular ideological belief, holds sway over an undeniable fact or over knowledge supported by reliable evidence, we see the phenomenon of post-truth politics in action. On social media, it is most often seen linked to conspiracy theories or in the pronouncements of populist leaders or demagogues. Sadly, this irrational way of thinking has infected many people’s attitudes more generally, including their views towards science, and we often see claims on social media that opinion is more valid than evidence.