Distrust in Experts Is Leading Us Towards a Dystopian End
Cancel culture to be canceled for scientists
We no longer trust in scientists as we used to have, and no — it is not because Dr. Fauci changed his views during the COVID-19 pandemic. The problem is much more profound than that. According to one study, 43 percent of US citizens said they would get vaccinated if advised to do so by the CDC, while the rest said they would comply with whatever the family members decide to do (Morning Consult Study). It is to no one’s benefit to scorn those folks who have lost their belief in science and facts; grasping the underlying causes of the distrust is vital. The world is in a dystopian state; we need to trust experts to prevent water shortages, fix the climate crisis, and so forth.
The trust erosion in healthcare sciences signals a paramount issue: Not only have we lost trust in healthcare experts but in experts of all fields. Financial experts failed miserably to predict the impending financial crisis, polls suggested Hillary Clinton have a landslide victory over Trump. Once pigeonholed as hazardous plants, weeds have served as curing miracles. Bitcoin holders who shut their ears to the expert advice witnessed 20X returns. Adding fuel to the fire, WHO failed to acknowledge that the COVID-19 storm is a pandemic at the very beginning. There are myriad examples that have occurred at the post-truth age, where narratives win the fight over facts.
Moreover, we have preferred to “cancel” all scientists and experts whose prior assumptions or theories contradict the latest scientific facts and figures. Scientists should have been the last in line to be the victims of the cancel culture.
What built this uncertain environment and how can we fix this issue to provide academic freedom and enable the flourishing of creative ideas that foster scientific development?
The major culprit lies in our understanding of what science is and how we have shaped it until now. We have grown up with scientific formulas and many generations assumed facts did not change once proven. For us, scientific knowledge had been immutable. The pace of the scientific developments used to be comparably slower. Forget that era. Every day now, the most updated knowledge may prove the preceding one wrong. We should accept facts and scientific knowledge unceasingly change and we need to steer the wheel accordingly. Scientific knowledge is to be interpreted in a work-in-progress scheme. Hence, do not cancel the scientist who changed his/her views on a hot topic.
Second, scientists have discussed scientific issues in public spheres of the digital world–be it Twitter or a blog, non-conclusive arguments took these platforms by storm. We, the ordinary men, witness each phase of their thought process, interim charts, and these nuances of information baffled us. The public is not adequately equipped to interpret such argumentation, let alone our mathematical knowledge is extremely limited to digesting such intense data flow. I reckon this habit should stop. TW is not a platform to cook scientific ideas and thinking-out-loud should be restricted to mundane issues in public platforms.
Third, communication flaws: Populist scientists have long ago discovered that paternal communication and guidance, a style that involves providing exact conclusions overconfidently, is more effective in triggering intended behavior than the risk-averse but more reliable articulation of scientific advice. What happens when this once-exact advice is falsified by another study? We cancel the scientists behind the former advice.
Last but not least, we no longer believe that those in power, be it in science or any other field, hold their positions merit-based. The politics have altered the way we trust in their expertise and we are concerned.
Is there any hope? Absolutely.
1. Reframe what science is and accept the mere fact: Scientific knowledge changes incessantly and we should not hold on to what we used to identify as sheer facts.
2. Avoid binary thinking — something has not got to be true or false. Appreciate neutral fields.
3. Scientists should stop arguing in public spaces. Work-in-progress arguments should be limited to certain platforms. We should be exposed to cooked content.
4. “Scientific communication” should be a popular area of sought expertise. Scientists should be trained to communicate effectively without putting our lives at risk.
5. Science journalists should be more popular and abundant. CNN’s pandemic-famous face, Sanjay Gupta, a neurosurgeon-medical reporter, has demonstrated exemplary performance in articulating scattered pandemic information, distilling it, and conveying it to the public. We need more such expert journalists not only in healthcare but in every field.
We should vent our anger when we are not informed or updated by the most recent data and knowledge, not when we receive a point of view opposing the preceding fact. Do not cancel scientists; we need them more than ever. Transform your view of what science stands for.
